Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Clinton's Blueprint

A trio of senior advisers to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) presidential campaign held a conference call this afternoon to lay out what they believe is a blueprint that -- over the next two weeks -- will restore the race for the nomination to rough parity between the New York senator and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

The call came less than 24 hours after Obama claimed his 9th and 10th straight victories over Clinton with wins last night in Wisconsin's primary and Hawaii's caucuses. Those wins added to Obama's overall delegate lead and, as importantly, fed the sense of momentum surrounding the candidacy of the Illinois senator.

So, how can Clinton turn things around between now and March 4, when Ohio and Texas -- must wins for her future hopes in the race -- are set to vote.

1. Neither candidate will emerge from the primary fight with the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Ickes, a consummate party insider, insisted that if the race plays out as expected (Clinton victories in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania) it is impossible for either candidate to secure the nomination on the strength of pledged delegates alone. "When this whole process is over on the 7th of June, both candidates will need a number of automatic [super] delegates to clinch the nomination," Ickes said. " We believe Mrs. Clinton will be able to get those." Ickes' theory presumes that superdelegates will resist calls to vote as their districts or states voted and instead make up their minds independent of what their constituents decide. It also presumes that superdelegates won't begin moving en masse to Obama as he looks more and more like the inevitable nominee.

2. Two Weeks is a Long Time in Political Terms.. Not since the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 has there been so much time in between votes in the Democratic primary. There will be 13 days without a single vote between today and Ohio/Texas -- an opportunity, the Clinton team believes, to make their case for their candidate and against Obama without the distraction of primaries/caucuses. "This is a full chance to lay out the case," said Penn this afternoon. Time could be Clinton's friend or enemy depending on external circumstances. The Teamsters' endorsement of Obama (and the potential Change To Win endorsement tomorrow) suggests that a pillar of the Democratic party is rallying behind him. For Clinton to take full advantage of the break in primary voting, she must hope that outside groups -- and superdelegates -- give her one last chance to make her case against Obama and show she is still a force to be reckoned with. If not, the time between now and the Ohio-Texas Two-Step may only serve to cement conventional wisdom behind Obama.

3. Debates Matter. The Clinton campaign has been clamoring for more debates with Obama and even used his unwillingness to debate her in Wisconsin in television ads (unsuccessfully as it turned out.) But, over the next 13 days the two candidates will face off twice -- tomorrow in Austin and next Tuesday in Cleveland. These will be the second and third head-to-head debates between the two Democrats; the first one, in Los Angeles on Feb. 1, struck The Fix as something of a draw, but the Clinton campaign clearly felt they got the better of the exchanges. The two upcoming nationally televised debates represent Clinton's best chance to change the fundamental dynamics of the race. For those skeptics who dismiss the idea that debates can change things, we need only point you to the Philadelphia debate in late October; Clinton's inability to give a straight answer to whether she supported a plan to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses set off a series of negative stories that turned this race from a coronation into a contest. Can Clinton score a similar blow sometimes over the next six days?

4. Obama is the frontrunner = more scrutiny. For the first we can remember, Ickes referred to the Illinois senator as the "frontrunner" in the race for the party's nomination. "Mr. Obama is the frontrunner," said Ickes. "There will be increased scrutiny on him and his ability to be president." Later in the call, Wolfson greatly expanded on this idea, arguing that the recent charges of Obama lifting speech lines from Gov. Deval Patrick (Mass.), further revelations into his relationship with "indicted political fixer" Tony Rezko and questions over Obama's commitment to campaign finance reform are all the result of that increased scrutiny. The Clinton campaign has to hope that the media turns the full force of its investigative powers on Obama over the next 13 days and that something previously unknown -- and damaging -- is unearthed. None of the laundry list of charges from Wolfson rises to the level of damaging at the moment -- with the possible exception of Obama's relationship with Rezko. Still, it seems as though if there were a hidden landmind that could potentially end Obama's candidacy, it would have been surfaced by now. A corollary of this argument is that Obama has not faced a serious Republican opponent in his brief career in federal office, having crushed former ambassador Alan Keyes in his lone general election race in 2004. "Senator Obama has not faced a credible Republican challenge of any kind," asserted Penn. Clinton, on the other hand, has run -- albeit briefly -- against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and then Rep. Rick Lazio in her 2000 Senate campaign, opponents that tested her, according to Wolfson, and proved her mettle as a candidate.

5. Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) emergence means national security will be the key issue of 2008. With McCain going on the attack against Obama as an inexperienced and naive politician when it comes to national security, Penn argued that Democrats need to think long and hard about whether Obama can match resumes and credentials with McCain on national security matters. "The Republican nominee has extensive credibility in this area and the Democrat needs to be able to be commander-in-chief," said Penn, adding that Clinton's service on the Armed Services Committee as well as the fact she has visited more than 80 foreign countries makes her the far stronger choice. He derided Obama as a "candidate with relatively no experience on national security and limited time in the United States Senate." This argument is an extension of the "risk" argument that drew so much criticism earlier in the race. That is, the Clinton campaign is asking voters to take a hard look at whether they feel comfortable with someone who has spent just a few years in the Senate as president. The answer to date has been a resounding yes, but things in politics can change at the drop of a hat.

6. Big States Matter More. This is an argument the Clinton campaign has been making quietly for weeks -- that it would be unimaginable for a party to nominate a candidate who hadn't won any of the biggest (most populous) states in the country. That argument only holds up if Clinton can deliver wins in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania -- adding to previous victories in California, New York, New Jersey and Florida, which, of course, was not seriously contested. Does it resonate with voters? Obama has won hundreds of thousands more raw votes than Clinton at this point and had a delegate lead. And, given how many states have already voted, it's hard to argue that the will of the people has somehow been subverted in the process to date.

The problem with the Clinton campaign strategy is that it fails to convince voters that Senator Clinton is the better candidate.
Sorry folks, but the news media does not have that much influence. Voters make up their own minds regardless of what the news contains or what it does not contain. More people vote for a candidate because someone they know says he or she is the best candidate than voters who only decide based on what major corporate news sources tell them.
With the increase in self-imposed censureship by news writers and editors, more and more people distrust what the news reports tell them and seek alternative sources of information.
The bottom line - more people have voted for Senator Obama than Senator Clinton. It does not matter what states voted for which candidate because the general election is a different contest.
More people think Senator Obama will be the better president of all the American people. If voters in Texas and Ohio agree with that conclusion, Senator Clinton returns to the United States Senate.

ericp331 writes
"But if Obama takes either OH or TX (or both) on March 4, then it will be interesting to see what the Clinton campaign does."

You really have to give the Clinton campaign for setting the expectation that these smaller state events in the middle 'don't matter'. She has not been mathematically eliminated from the race, but her chances of catching Obama in numbers of pledged delgates are extremely small.

I think she'll be upset in OH and/or TX, and will drop out on March 5 as a result.

Why didn't you dismiss the Clinton campaign's claim that they won MI and FL? DNC rules meant that those states lost their delegates because they tried to be cute and jumped ahead of the Super Tuesday states.

In MI, every major candidate except for Clinton took their names off the ballot. In FL, no one campaigned there, but Clinton did an end-around by announcing before FL voted that should would be in FL that evening to thank her supporters.

So, MI and FL can't be called Clinton wins. They need to have actual primaries or caucuses.

And, how can Clinton dismiss IL as not being a big state? Obama got a bigger share in NY than Clinton did in IL.

Given, IL is Obama's home state, and NY is Clinton's. So that's a wash.

CA... yes, Clinton won there.

So, that leaves OH, TX and PA as the remaining big states.

If Clinton wins all three, hats off to her. But if Obama takes either OH or TX (or both) on March 4, then it will be interesting to see what the Clinton campaign does.

"The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to the rank as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow."

I think Obama can take advantage of the experience issue by hammering home his point that all of the experience Hillary supposedly has did not allow her to make the right call on the Iraq war - a mistake she still refuses to acknowledge. That should be his central salvo tonight. It is legitimate (although I really believe it was a lack of political will and not a mistake in judgment that caused all of the dems to vote for the war. it was not that they believed the WMD story but that Bush backed them into a corner and they were unwilling to appear as weak. This is particularly true of HRC who had been triangulating as a hawk ever since 9-11 in order to bolster her presidential aspirations down the line. Because this latter point is much harder to make in 30 seconds, Obama should hit my first point hard.)

HILLARY: Release your tax returns so the public can see them !!! Obama already has. Why haven't you?? What are you hiding??

Where did you get the $5 million you "loaned" your own campaign?? Did it come from a foreign source?? Some foreign leader(s) that Bill has been dealing with in recent years on his paid foreign speaking engagements??

When asked to release your tax returns, why did you say you would do so AFTER the Democratic Convention?? WE WANT TO SEE YOUR TAX RETURNS NOW, HILLARY !!!

The Clinton strategy is simple: Wait around and pray for Obama to screw up big time or for an outside event (a meteor hits an Obama rally.) The delegate math in Texas means that even if she can win the popular vote, which is not looking great, she'll lose or tie the delegate allocation. In Ohio, she cannot win big enough if she even wins. If she does win TX and OH, the following Saturday is an Obama win in WY and the following Tuesday is an Obama win in MS. Obama immediately blunts her "wins" and they wait over a month for PA. After that there is one state with more than a hundred delegates, NC in May.

As for big states matter ... like Obama could lose NY or CA in the fall? Or HRC could win TX? OH and PA are the only real tests of big states left and it is the middle and little states that provide the winning edge in an election.

What I have been contending all along, namely, that Hillary's attacks on Obama are, in fact, good for him.

They are making him stronger. The attacks are forcing his campaign to develop a rapid response team that kind of reminds me of Bill Clinton's War Room boys in '92.

The Republicans are going to be far tougher, and MUCH dirtier, when they take on Obama.

So, this is good. I hope Hillary can stay in the race for awhile and I'm glad the Clintons are throwing everything they have at Obama. It is making his campaign sharper and him a stronger candidate for the general election.

I really do believe Obama is the Anti-Christ ! Note the parallels in that Omen movie.
Also: I suppose it is a person's right per the Second Amendment to NOT hold hand over your heart during the playing of the National Anthem, huh, Barack.

Dear America,
The endorsement of Barack Obama is a reflection of the confusion this country is in. This man has done absolutely nothing to deserve any one of his endorsements. We are choosing experience and leadership for empty words. Its nice to know that my fellow Americans are so easliy taken in by a smooth talker. This man has come out of nowhere and has brainwashed the country. Sure we all want change, but we cannot blame the disarray in Washington on Clinton. WE cannot blame the ways of the world on her. She is a movement for change herself and wants to change the condition of this country just as much as Obama. I just hope this cloud of confusion will clear up before we make the wrong decision

In your post February 20, 2008 at 11:18 PM you raise several questions that attempt to discredit the breadth of Obama's support and his viability as a general election candidate. While I don't have time to articulate the rebuttal to all your questions (and you are incorrect on nearly every point), let me take one of your core arguments: that Obama really isn't building much of a coalition or bringing out new voters.

Obama absolutely IS bringing out new voters, particularly young voters. I'll let a few other prominent sources make the case from here:

from The Economist, posted in http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/351843_indeponline20.html
February 19, 2008
"Until last week, Clinton's strength has been her ability to turn out the vote in solid Democratic states such as California and solid Democratic constituencies such as blue-collar voters. But she repels many independents who associate her with Beltway business-as- usual.
In contrast, Obama sounds the themes that most appeal to independents -- frustration with America's broken politics; hope of finding pragmatic solutions by reaching across the partisan divide.
And independents have not disappointed him. Obama beat Clinton among such voters almost everywhere, even in her strongest states such as New York and California. A recent Pew poll suggests Obama has a 62 percent approval rating among independents, the highest of any candidate."

www.politifact.com
September 4, 2007:
"A PolitiFact.com analysis of all 31 GOP states from the 2004 presidential election finds that Obama could turn at least nine (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia) to the Democrats if, indeed, he triggered a 30 percent increase in turnout among both African-Americans and young people, ages 18 to 29."

http://socialcapital.wordpress.com
February 5, 2008
"Nearly three-quarters of the [TIME survey] respondents said they feel the country is headed down the wrong track, with majorities expressing worries about jobs, affordable health care and the war in Iraq. Their interest in the election exceeds their interest in celebrity news or sports -- 7 of 10 said they are paying attention to the race. Obama is the only candidate in either party who is viewed favorably by a majority of young people, and he has half again as much support as his nearest competitor, Democrat or Republican." The poll showed that 72% of 18-29 year olds are paying attention to the campaign, way above the 13% and 42% who were paying attention in 2000 and 2004.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Feb 20, 2008
"Obama carried independents by about 30 points, according to the exit polls.
But Obama's performance was striking in other ways that will help him make his case in upcoming states and to the party's powerful bloc of unpledged "super delegates."
One, his victory was big and broad, exit polls suggested.
Two, it came in a 50/50 battleground-the closest state in the country in 2004 - that is a virtual must-win for Democrats in November.
Three, it came in the kind of environment that Clinton herself has said provides added legitimacy-a big-turnout primary, rather than the kind of low-turnout caucuses that Obama has dominated this year by out-organizing his opponents."

cjspellane - "...it was Bill Clinton's image of idealism (Man from Hope)and moderate populism that enbles him the break the chain. The Clintons captured the moment 16 years ago,but their time has come and gone."

So what you appear to be saying is that Obama is the sequal to Clinton. I guess if his campaign was a movie, its title would be "Hope II: The Wrath of Obama"?

If Obama loses because the Supers install Clinton, the Dems stand to lose the African-American vote permanently. Even with over 90% from African-Americans, they can not count on winning the presidential elections because the white vote goes nearly 2-1 Republican. If African-Americans drop to even 75% Democrat, the Dems won't stand a chance for a long time (at least until all the illegal Hispanics pass their amnesty period, get their citizenship, and become legal voters; but since many of them are currently voting illegally anyway, that might not make too much of a difference).

Hillary Clinton makes a fair point when she talks about Obama's lack of experience. But by her standards, Bill Clinton also should have been rejected in 1992 in favor of the more expereinced Democratic opponents, not to mention Mr. Resume himself, George H.W. Bush.

There is something new in the air, a reaction to the cynicism and ineptitude of the Bush years. Obama has captured the mood. Perhaps we will all live to regret it, but there it is.

Obama represents a chance to nominate someone who actually captures the imagination of the American people, in contrast to the list of intelligent but effete stiffs we have nominated in the past -- Dukakis, Gore, Kerry -- and Hillary is in that tradition. Ironically, it was Bill Clinton's image of idealism (Man from Hope)and moderate populism that enbles him the break the chain. The Clintons captured the moment 16 years ago,but their time has come and gone.

"This is the correct metaphor because the "fix" that wpost and drindl seek is to be found with Congress, and not with the Court."

-----------------------------------------
LOL. No sadness or anxiety in evidence. "Heartaches" refers to the defibrillators in the article. To subtle humor for some.

Congress has already dealt with the matter correctly. I agreed with Ruth, Kennedy and Waxman that the Supremes are off-key:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the solitary dissenter, said the court had misconstrued Congress's intent in adding the pre-emption clause to the 1976 law. The purpose, she said, was to prevent individual states from imposing their own premarket approval process on new medical devices. Devices were not regulated under federal law at the time, and California and other states had stepped in to fill the vacuum by setting up their own regulatory systems.

That was all that Congress had in mind, Justice Ginsburg said, not "a radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical devices." She said that Congress had passed the 1976 law "to protect consumer safety," not to oust the states from "a domain historically occupied by state law." The decision was at odds with the "central purpose" of the 1976 law, Justice Ginsburg added.

Crucial Democratic lawmakers appear to agree with Justice Ginsburg, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who heads the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and was the sole Senate sponsor of the 1976 legislation in question.

"In enacting legislation on medical devices, Congress never intended that F.D.A. approval would give blanket immunity to manufacturers from liability for injuries caused by faulty devices," Mr. Kennedy said in a statement. He added: "Congress obviously needs to correct the court's decision."

Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and was on the House panel that approved the 1976 bill, expressed a similar view.

"The Supreme Court's decision strips consumers of the rights they've had for decades," Mr. Waxman said. "This isn't what Congress intended, and we'll pass legislation as quickly as possible to fix this nonsensical situation."

1. Clinton's team is assuming she'll win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. That's the same team who assumed the race would be over after Super Tuesday, right? Those wins aren't at all guaranteed. Especially Pennsylvania, which is still a ways off.

2. Yes, two weeks is a long time. A long time to talk about the many victories for Obama in recent weeks. Clinton hasn't won anything, or even gotten any positive news, since February 5. That's going to seem like the distant past by March 4.

3. There have been (approx) 18 debates so far, and Clinton still hasn't won. What's different about the next 2?

4. This one is a good point. But it's not related to anything the Clinton campaign can do. If their strategy is to sit back and hope the press and McCain take care of Obama for them, they'll lose.

5. So the plan is to compare Hillary's experience to McCain's? Yeah, that'll work.

6. Totally wrong. Delegates matter. You can get delegates with a few big wins or a lot of smaller wins. That's the way the system works. Clinton's strategy of only competing for big states is making her look worse, not better.

For all the talk about Obama being glorified by the press, and given a pass, what about Team Clinton? Why is she still relevant at this point? Simply because she is a Clinton? If Obama had just lost 10 primaries and caucuses, most everyone would be writing his political obit. If the campaign Team Clinton has run is any indication of how she would govern, it would be a disaster. While there may be people who see Obama as a cult figure, that is only small part of the story. The increased participation in the primaries and caucuses is due to Obama's campaign. Furthermore, Obama has over 900,000 contributers and is heading for 1,000,000.
As for Obama, he has been brutally honest about the difficulty and sacrifice required for change. It is mentioned in almost every speech. In the past, his oration skills would have been the norm. Think back to the founding fathers, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster. Now they are greeted with doubts and suspeicion. His oratory is important because he is trying to build support for a mandate. If the nominee, he will pick out 2 or 3 major initiatives and ask for voters support in the fall.

"Why else are the Republicans being so soft on Obama so far and even Rove is giving him advice on how to beat Senator Clinton? Because they KNOW he will be easier to eat. They'll make mincemeat out of him and Michelle, who is only know proud of her country. They'll smear Obama"
=================================

LOL. Why would they bother? You and Hillary are master smearers, esp when it comes to smearing your own. With Medeas like you, the right-wing media's job is done.

The Clinton camp seems busy re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. They spent $120 million to help Hillary hit the ground (forget the "running" part). This is not the kind of leadership we would want for the party or the country.

Another suggestion for the team: let the band play "God save the Queen" at her next appearance. Because only God can save her now.

While it doesn't look good, in part due to the Media's constant glorification of "His Hopeness" (maybe we'll soon see MSNBC and CNN anointing his feet with snake oil) don't count Senator Clinton out. She's tougher, smarter and a better choice for Commander in Chief. If Democrats continue to be Jonestown cultists following this "Big hat, No cattle" orator into the sunset, Senator McCain and the Republicans will clean his clock in the general election and many Clinton supporters such as myself will vote for him vs the fake Pope of Hope.

Why else are the Republicans being so soft on Obama so far and even Rove is giving him advice on how to beat Senator Clinton? Because they KNOW he will be easier to eat. They'll make mincemeat out of him and Michelle, who is only know proud of her country. They'll smear Obama and brand a big "L" liberal on him and his Kennedy and Kerry endorsements will come back to haunt him.

Senator Clinton's staff may be brilliant, but they obviously can't add or subtract. Unless Senator Clinton wants to help Senator McCain be elected in November and continue the Bush Administration's failed policies, Senator Clinton ought to muster her valuable staff and supporters and enthusiastically support Senator Obama. How about acting like a TRUE WINNER, Senator Clinton, rather than a SORE LOSER?

Senator Clinton's staff may be brilliant, but they obviously can't add or subtract. Unless Senator Clinton wants to help Senator McCain be elected in November and continue the Bush Administration's failed policies, Senator Clinton ought to muster her valuable staff and supporters and enthusiastically support Senator Obama. How about acting like a TRUE WINNER, Senator Clinton, rather than a SORE LOSER?
Markomd, Knoxville, TN

Senator Clinton's staff may be brilliant, but they obviously can't add or subtract. Unless Senator Clinton wants to help Senator McCain be elected in November and continue the Bush Administration's failed policies, Senator Clinton ought to muster her valuable staff and supporters and enthusiastically support Senator Obama. How about acting like a TRUE WINNER, Senator Clinton, rather than a SORE LOSER?

Just wondering what you think about Michelle's comment in Milwaukee, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country..."

_____________________________________________

What, exactly, was there to be proud about Bill, "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton, or W??? You can love your country without blindly being proud of the shameful things that are so public about America. If you don't get that, there is something wrong with YOU, not with Michelle Obama.

I live in Ohio. A week ago, Mrs. Clinton enjoyed a 22 percent lead. As of yesterday, that lead has dropped to 9 percent. Sen. Obama has only campaigned here a few times. I'm sure he'll be here a lot next week, after the Feb. 26th debate in Cleveland.
If Mrs. Clinton wins Ohio, it will be by only a few points--no mandate and not enough to catch up in the delgate count.

I live in Ohio. A week ago, Mrs. Clinton enjoyed a 22 percent lead. As of yesterday, that lead has dropped to 9 percent. Sen. Obama has only campaigned here a few times. I'm sure he'll be here a lot next week, after the Feb. 26th debate in Cleveland.
If Mrs. Clinton wins Ohio, it will be by only a few points--no mandate and not enough to catch up in the delgate count.

The Court delivered three opinions, all 8-1 or 9-0, supporting the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause. When Congress writes a law that is within its very broad power under the Commerce Clause and that does not violate the Bill of Rights the Supremes will uphold it against a states' rights attack [except for some minor quibbles from Rehnquist, this has been true for a very long time].

So these were pro-business laws that Congress wrote and if you do not like them, write your Congressperson or Senator.

I live in Ohio. A week ago, Mrs. Clinton was up by about 22 percent, as of yesterday, that lead has dropped to 9 percent. Sen. Obama has been here just a few times; I'm sure he'll be here a lot next week after the Cleveland debate on 26th.
If she wins Ohio, it will be by just a few points--no mandate and certainly not enough to catch up with the delegate count.

You can't fault the Clinton people for trying to make their situation look less bad, but this is ridiculous.

Neither candidate will emerge from the primary fight with the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination

Two weeks from now, the superdelegates (including some or most of Clinton's) will be moving en masse to Obama. He should have 2100+ easily, and then more after Pennsylvania and the other remaining states.

Two Weeks is a Long Time in Political Terms.

When has length of time ever been helpful to Clinton? Her few victories came in New Hampshire, just four days wasn't it after Iowa, and then the compressed calendar of Superduper Tuesday. I expect Obama will at the very least draw with Clinton in Ohio and Texas, and wouldn't be surprised to see him win one or both.

Debates Matter

Yes, they do. Hillary's wobbling began with her fumbled response to the question about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Her debate reputation is all about her command of policy details, but in tonight's debate and next week's, she'll be attacking Obama, not showing off her wonkery. Attack-mode Hillary turns people off.

Obama is the frontrunner = more scrutiny

I have to think the lame plagiarism charge means the Clintonians have exhausted their oppo research on him. The Trib still hasn't found much Rezko slime to pin on Obama either, and lord knows they've been trying. You never know, but it looks like Obama is a pretty decent guy.

Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) emergence means national security will be the key issue of 2008

Actually, it means McCain has nothing on the domestic issues people are most worried about, and what he does have is a war he's married to that most Americans want us out of. That's a bad political combination. McCain is and always has been the best matchup for Obama and the worst for Clinton. By the way, Republicans: the best candidate you could have run against Obama was Mitt Romney.

Big States Matter More

A delegate is a delegate is a delegate. I've said this before, but let me repeat it now: Team Obama has from start to finish out-strategized and out-worked Team Clinton. Clinton '08 will be studied by political scientists for years to come for how *not* to run a national primary campaign.

Robby1,
"How can Americans find a good paying job in this horrible economy." While the economy has some serious trouble spots, unemployment does not seem to be one of them and the term 'horrible' is hyperbole. Based on your last question, it appears that you have gone to school recently so perhaps you need to start working at A job to demonstrate your ability to work and gather some real life work experience.

"How we will stop our dependence on oil?" When technology, driven most efficiently by the free market, finds a way to effectively allow us to change our infrastructure. You can help by turning the lights and PCs off when you are not using them, among a myriad of other things.

"How we will have a health care program that will not garnish my wages in the process." Apparently in your school experience, you went a little light on the econ classes. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.

"How these rent and mortgage prices will lower" They probably won't unless you get someone to give you a subsidy, either a friend or family member or a stranger via a government program. But one of the reasons you went to school was to be able to earn enough to take care of yourself.

"How I am going to pay these law school loans?" I am assuming monthly but most loans you can pay off more frequently if so desired. See the earlier answer to jobs.

The overall problem with your questions is that you seem to think that there is some entity called the "government" that should and can "help" you out. The problem with that is that the rest of us who are going about our day being productive and working and who have or are handling these same issues will be penalized so that you can be "helped". President Kennedy once advised the nation "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." I'm not sure what the issue of this election will be but something tells me that Kennedy's sentimate won't be a discussion topic this time around.

On Tuesday night, after an important and historic victory in the Wisconsin Presidential Primary by Senator Barack Obama, I appeared on the MSNBC post-election program. "Hardball" host Chris Matthews (who is, it turns out, as ferocious as they say), began grilling me on Senator Obama's legislative record.

And my mind went blank. I expected to be asked about the primary that night, or the big one coming up in Texas on March 4, or just about anything else in the news. When the subject changed so emphatically, I reached for information that millions of my fellow Obama supporters could recite by heart, and I couldn't summon it.

My most unfortunate gaffe is not, in any way, a comment on Senator Obama, his substantial record, or the great opportunity we all share to elect him President of the United States.

Had I not lost my mind, here are the accomplishments I would have mentioned:

* Senator Obama's fight for universal children's health care in Illinois.
* His success bringing Republicans and Democrats together (a huge selling point for me in general) on bills such as the one in Illinois requiring police interrogations and confessions to be videotaped.
* His leadership on ethics reform in Washington (the bill that lobbyists and special interests are complaining about right now has his name on it).
* His bill to make the federal budget far more transparent and accessible to Americans via the Internet - we could use that openness in Texas.
* And his vital work with Republicans to lock down nuclear weapons around the world.

Of course, it would have helped to remember all of this last night. I encourage anyone who wants to know more (especially Mr. Matthews) to log onto texas.barackobama.com.

In the meantime, let's not lose focus on what's important in this election. It's not my stunning televised defeat in "Stump the Chump." Thankfully, it has nothing at all to do with me.

What's important is the direction our country is headed. What's important are the priorities, methods, and, yes, accomplishments of those seeking the highest office in the country.

Senator Obama has a vision for this nation, and we would be fortunate to fulfill it. He has the commitment to work with everyone from across the political and demographic spectrum to achieve it. And he has the strength to defend us, our security, and our values against all who will challenge them.

But most of all, he has the record to prove that all of this is possible. It's something no one should forget.

"She is 60. She left Yale Law School at age 25. Evidently she considers everything she has done since school, from her years at Little Rock's Rose Law Firm to her good fortune with cattle futures, as presidentially relevant experience.

The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow. "

If you read the NYT story I think you will concede that it is unbecoming of any paper other than a tabloid rag. It repeats an unsubstantiated rumor of a liason dangereuse in the 1990s that was denied by both parties. Buried in the story is the fact that McC often voted against the requests of the particular lobbyist. On the fourth page:

"...McCain had frequently denied requests from Ms. Iseman and the companies she represented. In 2006, Mr. McCain sought to break up cable subscription packages, which some of her clients opposed. And his proposals for satellite distribution of local television programs fell short of her clients' hopes."

This was beneath the standards of the NYT, at one time.

I do not make this out to be a politicized article because the story is so old, the NYT endorsed McC, and the timing is not bad for McC. I make it out to be the selling of sensationalism and rumors of sex.

As recently as 1980, the NYT demanded that its reporters have triple separate sourced information. Then, it would not have published the salacious hints in this article.

The Clinton Campaign needs to be very careful how they conduct themselves in the weeks ahead. If they say anything that opens a line of attack against Obama, should he become the Party's nominee, they will be undermining the Democratic Party's chance of regaining the White House. Do they care to put personal interest ahead of the greater good? We shall see.

Of all those potential points for HRC, Chris, the only one that I think has a chance to stick is the 'Obama is the frontrunner, now comes the scrutiny'. It's the way the press works; they love the underdog, they hate the frontrunner.

Case in point: the NYT is now beginning the hatchet job on McCain, with the unsubstantiated lobbyist charges. It's like clockwork. Now, NOBODY would ever accuse the NYT of being an objective source (except maybe Colin), but it provides us a good reminder that political races are like crab traps - whenever one looks like they're going to climb out, the rest of them are pulling on their legs to pull them back in.

I doubt this will be enough to make a difference with HRC though, unless something shocking gets unearthed about Obama.

It all sounds like a campaign in its death throes to me. Hillary is reduced to repeating the same shrill untruths that have led to her failure: "I have 35 years experience!" "I will be ready on Day One!", "My opponent lies and plagiarizes and besides he's black,he doesn't really matter" and so on.

Hillary has a rich laundry list of negatives and unexplained activities. Hillary sounds shrill and rigid and her priorities shift like sand, and Hillary's last name disgusts a lot of people. Her policies are virtually indistinguishable from McCain. She can't possibly win.

That right there guarantees that Democrats will nominate her. Superdelegates will see Obama as another McGovern. There will be a party revolt and riots in the streets, but the old pol Dems don't give a damn. And then of course, true to the Republican playbook, she will lose to McCain.

A Texas gal here. Just saw Hillary tonight at our local arena. Texas is Clinton Country, especially here in the Rio Grande Valley. Sen. Clinton is very much loved and admired here. She is one classy, caring and intelligent lady, who deserves our respect. My gosh, she was our First Lady, and now is a Unites States Senator. I cannot believe some of the horrid comments I've read here, didn't your mothers teach your manners??

I'll take on the corollary for blueprint argument No. 4: (Obama is the frontrunner = more scrutiny.)

"A corollary of this argument is that Obama has not faced a serious Republican opponent in his brief career in federal office, having crushed former ambassador Alan Keyes in his lone general election race in 2004. 'Senator Obama has not faced a credible Republican challenge of any kind,' asserted Penn. Clinton, on the other hand, has run -- albeit briefly -- against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and then Rep. Rick Lazio in her 2000 Senate campaign, opponents that tested her, according to Wolfson, and proved her mettle as a candidate."

Who is Mark Penn kidding?

Sen. Clinton hasn't had credible Republican opposition either.

Mayor Rudy bowed out before the 2000 Senate race got into full-swing. Rep. Lazio was a lightweight, as was Clinton's 2006 no-name Republican opponent.

She rasied $50 million for the 2006 race, and spent $37 million. Yes, $37 million. Running against a no-name opponent.

Seriously...this is her "blueprint." How can she talk about beating someone in a general election and is LOSING in the primary???

Also, who said that national security will be the "issue of the general election in 2008." I am American, I am a voter, the "issue for the general election" will be:
How can Americans find a good paying job in this horrible economy.
How we will stop our dependence on oil
How we will have a health care program that will not garnish my wages in the process
How these rent and mortgage prices will lower
How I am going to pay these law school loans....

THOSE ARE Americans' issues. Sorry, the GOP isn't deciding what the issues will be in this election.

Seriously...this is her "blueprint." How can she talk about beating someone in a general election and is LOSING in the primary???

Also, who said that national security will be the "issue of the general election in 2008." I am American, I am a voter, the "issue for the general election" will be:
How can Americans find a good paying job in this horrible economy.
How we will stop our dependence on oil
How we will have a health care program that will not garnish my wages in the process
How these rent and mortgage prices will lower
How I am going to pay these law school loans....

THOSE ARE Americans' issues. Sorry, the GOP isn't deciding what the issues will be in this election.

Seriously...this is her "blueprint." How can she talk about beating someone in a general election and is LOSING in the primary???

Also, who said that national security will be the "issue of the general election in 2008." I am American, I am a voter, the "issue for the general election" will be:
How can Americans find a good paying job in this horrible economy.
How we will stop our dependence on oil
How we will have a health care program that will not garnish my wages in the process
How these rent and mortgage prices will lower
How I am going to pay these law school loans....

THOSE ARE Americans' issues. Sorry, the GOP isn't deciding what the issues will be in this election.

According to Michelle Obama that she was FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER ADUlT LIFE THAT SHE WAS REALLY PROUD OF HER COUNTRY. Imagine if Hillary say those phrase. Hillary will be attacked by the media right away. But with Michelle Obama the media gave her chance to explain what she meant. See how bias the media. Michelle do not be so hypocrite, you are proud now becuase your husband is winning the democrat nomination, but let me tell you, I'm very proud of this country even I do not like president Bush. We, the American people are so blinded from the truth. We always hoping for the false hope because of our failure in life. Wake up America and see the truth for yourself. There are candidates that really cares for our great country and there are candidates longing for power. This we call hungry to take the White House for themself and we are easily get fool by all this false hope and change. Change will happen either we like it or not with every single new president. As Obama alwyas say that it time to change washington. I'm just wondering how he will change the entire washington? Is he GOD that can make magic. I doubt it. He's just like another politician hungry to have 1600 Pensylvania address for four years.

According to Michelle Obama that she was FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER ADUlT LIFE THAT SHE WAS REALLY PROUD OF HER COUNTRY. Imagine if Hillary say those phrase. Hillary will be attacked by the media right away. But with Michelle Obama the media gave her chance to explain what she meant. See how bias the media. Michelle do not be so hypocrite, you are proud now becuase your husband is winning the democrat nomination, but let me tell you, I'm very proud of this country even I do not like president Bush. We, the American people are so blinded from the truth. We always hoping for the false hope because of our failure in life. Wake up America and see the truth for yourself. There are candidates that really cares for our great country and there are candidates longing for power. This we call hungry to take the White House for themself and we are easily get fool by all this false hope and change. Change will happen either we like it or not with every single new president. As Obama alwyas say that it time to change washington. I'm just wondering how he will change the entire washington? Is he GOD that can make magic. I doubt it. He's just like another politician hungry to have 1600 Pensylvania address for four years.

I hope that between now and March 4th, the Post will uncover the most recent dealings the Clintons are involved in. For example the $17 million lawsuit they are involved in in California which hearing are wrapping up Thursday morning which Peter Paul's attorney's are working on having Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea to testify. Although it comes from a right-wing rag it is still nonetheless a lawsuit they are involved in (\http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868)

I would also like to know how she thinks her campaign contributors would feel if they knew she was paying herself interest for that little $5 million "loan". (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00431569/324192/sc/ALL)

I think that Hillary's rhetoric masks a lack of preparation for the presidency and it is becoming increasingly obvious.

This particular campaign of the Democrats looks increasingly like the NBA, in the sense that the Western Conference of the NBA is considerably stronger than the Eastern Conference.

The playoffs for the Western Conference title are extremely competitive, and the going gets exceptionally tough. Obama and Hillary are the finalists duking it out for the hypothetical NBA Western Conference Championship. Imagine something like the Los Angeles Lakers vs. the San Antonio Spurs as Western Conference finalists. I personally think and want Barack Obama (aka the Lakers) to win.

Once Senator Obama wins the nomination (aka NBA Western Conference Championship), then he will face Senator McCain (aka NBA Eastern Conference Champion). The Eastern Conference of the NBA has been notably weaker than the Western Conference for quite some time now. At times, the NBA championship series has resembled something more along the lines of a "scrimmage" than a real tooth and nail fight for the ultimate championship.

Senator Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton are going at it tooth and nail for the democratic party's nomination. A very tough and tumble affair.

Then comes the campaign for the presidency (aka NBA championship) in the fall. Obama vs. McCain looks more like a scrimmage or maybe Saturday Morning pickup basketball and the local high school gym. "Shirts" vs "Skins" anyone?

I personally see Obama going in for a most compelling slam dunk over an overwhelmed John McCain in November, who will be systematically faked into the popcorn machine throughout the fall campaign. Oops, I mean the scrimmage.

I wonder who is in a greater state of denial at this time. Hillary or Bill?

Did you hear Michelle Obama speeches whe she said FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY ADULT LIFE, I'M REALLY PROUD OF MY COUNTRY, then now trying to explained what she really meant. Come on Mrs. Obama, if you think that you and your husband can fool the whole United State of America, you are wrong. You are proud now because your husband is winning the democrat nomination. I bet you if he is losing you will say that you are not proud of this country. I'm a democrat even I do not like President Bush. I'm still proud of this country and I wasn't born here. Imagine if Hillary say this words. Hillary will be attacked by the media right away but with Michelle Obama the media gave her a change to explain. See how bias the media is? Good for Cindy McCain to response right away. Did I say that I do not trust Obama. Dear American people, we are so blinded to see the truth. Regardless what people say, Obama still has Muslim blood running through his vein. See how quick he changed his religion to christian when he planned to run for presidency. Now tell me are we so blinded for false hope and changing the entire washington because as per Obama said it a same old politics in washington. If Obama thinks that the politics in USA is so corrupt Why he is joining them? Is he GOD that can change the entire political system in this country? Maybe in Kenya. So Michelle do not be hypocrite. You meant what you said. You only proud of this country because there is a possibility that you will be the next first lady. God helps us all. God bless this great nation even sometime we elect the wrong person to lead this country.

Did you hear Michelle Obama speeches whe she said FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY ADULT LIFE, I'M REALLY PROUD OF MY COUNTRY, then now trying to explained what she really meant. Come on Mrs. Obama, if you think that you and your husband can fool the whole United State of America, you are wrong. You are proud now because your husband is winning the democrat nomination. I bet you if he is losing you will say that you are not proud of this country. I'm a democrat even I do not like President Bush. I'm still proud of this country and I wasn't born here. Imagine if Hillary say this words. Hillary will be attacked by the media right away but with Michelle Obama the media gave her a change to explain. See how bias the media is? Good for Cindy McCain to response right away. Did I say that I do not trust Obama. Dear American people, we are so blinded to see the truth. Regardless what people say, Obama still has Muslim blood running through his vein. See how quick he changed his religion to christian when he planned to run for presidency. Now tell me are we so blinded for false hope and changing the entire washington because as per Obama said it a same old politics in washington. If Obama thinks that the politics in USA is so corrupt Why he is joining them? Is he GOD that can change the entire political system in this country? Maybe in Kenya. So Michelle do not be hypocrite. You meant what you said. You only proud of this country because there is a possibility that you will be the next first lady. God helps us all. God bless this great nation even sometime we elect the wrong person to lead this country.

Did you hear Michelle Obama speeches whe she said FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY ADULT LIFE, I'M REALLY PROUD OF MY COUNTRY, then now trying to explained what she really meant. Come on Mrs. Obama, if you think that you and your husband can fool the whole United State of America, you are wrong. You are proud now because your husband is winning the democrat nomination. I bet you if he is losing you will say that you are not proud of this country. I'm a democrat even I do not like President Bush. I'm still proud of this country and I wasn't born here. Imagine if Hillary say this words. Hillary will be attacked by the media right away but with Michelle Obama the media gave her a change to explain. See how bias the media is? Good for Cindy McCain to response right away. Did I say that I do not trust Obama. Dear American people, we are so blinded to see the truth. Regardless what people say, Obama still has Muslim blood running through his vein. See how quick he changed his religion to christian when he planned to run for presidency. Now tell me are we so blinded for false hope and changing the entire washington because as per Obama said it a same old politics in washington. If Obama thinks that the politics in USA is so corrupt Why he is joining them? Is he GOD that can change the entire political system in this country? Maybe in Kenya. So Michelle do not be hypocrite. You meant what you said. You only proud of this country because there is a possibility that you will be the next first lady. God helps us all. God bless this great nation even sometime we elect the wrong person to lead this country.

In order for Hillary to win, the press has to DO IT'S JOB and vet Obama just as hard and with just as much deep investigative reporting, as they've done on Bill and Hillary. It's a disgrace how misogynistic the MSM is. We need a press core that has some integrity and is not full of their own self-importance or the need to appear on Hardball, Countdown, or some other talking heads show.

"She is 60. She left Yale Law School at age 25. Evidently she considers everything she has done since school, from her years at Little Rock's Rose Law Firm to her good fortune with cattle futures, as presidentially relevant experience.

The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow. "

No. The new blueprint won't work because at the end of the day Hillary Clinton is the same old candidate that voters have rejected in droves, and Obama's appeal to voters has shown they find these arguments to be less important than all the positive upsides they see in Obama.

Hopefully Ohio and Texas voters will end this race so we don't have to go through another six weeks of this tired and worn out campaign by Clinton.

To muaddib_7:
well, I did not actually expect that anyone reads these rumblings, most people just want to write what is on their minds...
Be it as it may, I never claimed to be wise or brilliant, but certainly experienced, as well as someone who knows history, which is nor something one can say about Mr.Obama and many of his ardent supporters. As far as the boomers, we did pretty well for this country, we shall see whether your generation will come close.

Hillary will not be the next president of this country not like other countries were they are more civilized than United State of America. Hillary forgets that USA is a macho nation. This country is so scare to find out that women can do a better job than men. US presidency is for men ONLY. This election, democrat has no strong candidates so they are embracing Obama like what the GANG OF FOUR DID. Shame of you all. Let's be honest to each others, WE have a good life during BIll Clinton presidency. Whatever happened to their private life,is their business. Which president that we admired so much is not a womanizer? Why media and some citezen of this great country blamed Hillary for what Bill's scandal. Everyone think Obama is the answer for the mess Bush will left behind. I doubt it. This is what we will teach our kids it's okay to use drug and be the president of United State of America in the future. America wake up.

ah, oh wise sage, Mr. simon7382. you wrote: "the young and ignorant wing of the democratic party".

And then democrats feign surprise at losing elections, because "the wise and truly brilliant wing of the democratic party" keep thinking people want half a_sed candidates who cow-tow to the right in the biggest foriegn policy debacle of our generation.

Hillary will not be the next president of this country not like other countries were they are more civilized than United State of America. Hillary forgets that USA is a macho nation. This country is so scare to find out that women can do a better job than men. US presidency is for men ONLY. This election, democrat has no strong candidates so they are embracing Obama like what the GANG OF FOUR DID. Shame of you all. Let's be honest to each others, WE have a good life during BIll Clinton presidency. Whatever happened to their private life,is their business. Which president that we admired so much is not a womanizer? Why media and some citezen of this great country blamed Hillary for what Bill's scandal. Everyone think Obama is the answer for the mess Bush will left behind. I doubt it. This is what we will teach our kids it's okay to use drug and be the president of United State of America in the future. America wake up.

hmmm... so true. so true. Illinois is about as large as Rhode Island. Definitely a small state. Oh wait,..., maybe that argument is about retarded. And there you have it. The real reason for the collapse of Team Clinton, campaign advisers who spend more time making up complete bs for afternoon conference calls than getting the boots on the ground and the message out there.

I agree with Jonathan Alter of Newsweek: Hillary is an excellent candidate with an incompetent campaign management and organization. However, the media, both left and right wing, pushing Obama from practically day one, not scrutinizing him at all, played also a crucial role in making Obama the democratic front runner. Chances are that the young and ignorant wing of the democratic party together will succeed in making him the nominee. He will lose the election without a doubt, same as McGowern did, whom most of Obama's fervent supporters do not remember. People who believe he can win the general election should ask themselves: why is it that the right wing media and pundits, from Fox news to Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan, all push Obama. Not because they would ever vote for him, but because they also believe that he will be easy to beat in November, and they are right.

It's all over. Obama will win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. He has more time to campaign in these areas than a place like NJ, Mass, and New York where he lost. It's all over. Obama will defeat McCain in the general election. Dems establishment better take note now! God is behind Obama in this thing. America is about to be back again and thriving. People will smile again. God is about to smile on America. This is a prophecy. Washington Post--you may contact me later.

I really don't understand where this country is going. the media are so bias with certain candidate and it was so obious that we as citezens of United State of america notice it. It's the talk at work place, private gathering, and family discussion. Media can not be trusted. They will cover the candidate who they favor and trust the other candidate. If Clinton blue print will work or not, for me it's already dead before it even been out because of all the negative opinions from the media. I just hope for the next four years we will not be sorry and tell ourself " WE MAKE MISTAKE AGAIN IN ELECTING OUR PRESIDENT." Maybe someone can teach OBAMA to say GOD BLESS AMERICA. I NEVER heard he ever say that phrase at the end of every speech he given. Does anybody notice it or we are all deaf.

"wpost4112 -- by your logic we should nominate Axelrod for president... since he runs the obama campaign... or maybe we should nominate deval patrick whose rhetoric obama steals.."
-------------------------------------------

No, that would be by your (faulty) logic, Barack is the leader of his campaign....Axelrod merely the manager. Just as Hillary is the leader of her campaign and Solis, now Williams, is the manager.

Barack picks his team...and he chose wisely. Unlike Hillary who chose her people just as Bush does...not by competence but by loyalty...i.e., by how well and how quickly they say "yes."

You say that Senator Obama's campaign slogans relate to changing decades-old insider politics. You feel that if he is the nominee, he will attract an entirely new coalition of voters beyond the marginal increase he has provided in Democratic primaries and caucuses.

However, the highest presidential vote getter in history was George W. Bush in 2004. The number TWO was John Kerry, believe it or not!

I agree with you that Obama will attract voters in favor of his policies to the voting booth. There will also be voters opposing him.

You list policy goals as:

health care coverage for all Americans who want it;

an end to tax loopholes that favor businesses that export jobs overseas;

curbing excessive oil company profits and the unfettered influence it buys in making policy;

enactment of meaningful fuel standards and environmental policy;

an honorable and swift end to the war in Iraq that also stabilizes the country and provides security for economic progress.

I agree that Obama's platform would contain goals like these. They are consistent with Al Gore's, John Kerry's, and in fact I am sure Hillary Clinton would also go for these things.

But even taking #1 on the list--health care. Am I to believe that this wouldn't be a bear of a challenge if it's Obama in there? And that's just the top item.

In your discussion about voting strategy, you say that Obama has a 50-state strategy. But many of the Obama supporters already want to shut down the nomination process before a whole bevy of states even vote (basically, by denying the vote to Clinton supporters in states that haven't voted yet.)

Isn't that actually the current Obama strategy---force Mrs. Clinton out of the race as the only way for Obama to achieve 2,025 delegates before the convention?

What kind of ringing endorsement would that present? It unifies nothing, because he can't even unify his own party without tactics like that. Isn't that what the Republicans are going to point out?

Most commenters say that Mrs. Clinton's tactical mistake was to trust that she could wrap up the nomination early by focusing on "Super Tuesday", not by intentionally ignoring small states in favor of large ones. Once it became clear she could not wrap up the nomination, then her misplaced emphasis became a strategic liability. But does this mean she meant to ignore these states, or just that she put her resources where she thought she had the greatest chance of success?

If Senator Obama, a Democrat, is concerned about carrying Idaho, for example, should this make me more confident about his ability as a candidate, or less?

Many people of all political persuasions agree that the last seven years have been bad news. But nothing about the primary results shows that Obama is creating any new coalitions out of this. For instance, there is no polling that shows that he would get even 10% of the Republican vote in the fall.

People point to the fact that he attracts white voters. But maybe it just means that whites are not the racists that they are portrayed to be by liberals in the Democrats. White Democratic presidential nominees (all the ones since 1800) have also attracted these kinds of voters. I am not sure this makes for a new coalition. Most Democrats are white.

Every election has new registered voters. Others pass on. Aren't all elections then made up of new and different people?

To conclude, you say:

"Sen. Obama's vision of America's possibilities offers the Democratic party an historic opportunity for growth and expansion. Sen. Clinton's candidacy has not attracted this same opportunity. But don't blame that on Sen. Obama."

I'm not certain this makes snese. The only way Obama gets to achieve "growth and expansion" is by a landslide victory.

But I have never heard of a candidate from a divided party who later went on to a landslide victory. Even John F Kennedy in 1960 barely squeaked it out versus Nixon, and not at all if Texas and Illinois really didn't go his way as some allege.

How Obama is attempting to win the nomination is creating conditions that will lead to the success of John McCain. He gets bare majorities in well contested states. And lopsided ones in those that by everyone's admission, Mrs. Clinton did not expect to have to contest.

Can anyone explain how Obama is going to make a landslide out of playing the delegate rules for small states very well, and then encouraging his followers to use pressure tactics to silence the vote in later voting states?

I just want to thank you all for an entertaining evening reading your comments. I truly cannot add any better analysis or input as to why these guys are really hilarious. I do want to echo seanmccray. I could do a much better job for Hillary than Mark Penn. I can't believe she is letting him rob her blind. He gets paid all of that money - - millions to come up with this garbage. It is really funny if it was so sad. Again, thank you my fellow Americans, I have almost burst my side laughing. It is refreshing to know that there are people out there that can communicate with such intellilect and a sense of humor and share my thinking exactly. This blueprint is for a house that is going to fall down with the first wind.

rippermccord: I think I have finally figured out what happened. She gave the first speech in Milwaukee and the second speech in Madison.

Here's what I just picked up from FOX

POLITICS

Michelle Obama Takes Heat for Saying She's 'Proud of My Country' for the First Time
Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, is under fire for leaving the impression that she hasn't been proud of her country until now, when Democrats are beginning to rally around her husband's campaign.

Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, she said, "People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and ... for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

Greeted with rousing applause after making the comment in Milwaukee, Obama delivered an amended version of the speech later that day in Madison, Wis.

"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country ... not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change," she said. "I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment."

I just want to thank you all for an entertaining evening reading your comments. I truly cannot add any better analysis or input as to why these guys are really hilarius. I do want to echo seanmccray. I could do a much better job for Hillary than Mark Penn. I can't believe she is letting her rob her blind. He get paid all of that money - - millions to come up with this garbage. It is really funny if it was so sad. Again, thank you my fellow Americans, I have almost burst side laughing. It is refreshing to be a part of this great electorate.

13 of the states Obama has won so far are hard-core RED states which are guaranteed to be RED in November .. States like ID ,AL, KS, CO, GA, SC, AL, MI, ND, UT, NB , LA, VA

It is extremely worrisome that in crucial Blue states like PA obama is actually trailing Mccain and there is a very good chance that if he is the nominee Democrats will loose the election because he wont carry some traditionally blue state like PA and will be unable to compete in FL or OH which are swing states.

This guy is going to be a Nov disaster based on his flimsy "all sizzle no steak" resume.... and lack of any national security credentials compared to mccain.

Democrats as usual can be expected to screw this up for the world by nominating a hope peddler instead of an all around solid and experienced candidate like clinton.

" In the meantime, let's not lose focus on what's important in this election. It's not my stunning televised defeat in "Stump the Chump." Thankfully, it has nothing at all to do with me."
-------------------------------

On Tuesday night, after an important and historic victory in the Wisconsin Presidential Primary by Senator Barack Obama, I appeared on the MSNBC post-election program. "Hardball" host Chris Matthews (who is, it turns out, as ferocious as they say), began grilling me on Senator Obama's legislative record.

And my mind went blank. I expected to be asked about the primary that night, or the big one coming up in Texas on March 4, or just about anything else in the news. When the subject changed so emphatically, I reached for information that millions of my fellow Obama supporters could recite by heart, and I couldn't summon it.

My most unfortunate gaffe is not, in any way, a comment on Senator Obama, his substantial record, or the great opportunity we all share to elect him President of the United States.

Had I not lost my mind, here are the accomplishments I would have mentioned:

* Senator Obama's fight for universal children's health care in Illinois.
* His success bringing Republicans and Democrats together (a huge selling point for me in general) on bills such as the one in Illinois requiring police interrogations and confessions to be videotaped.
* His leadership on ethics reform in Washington (the bill that lobbyists and special interests are complaining about right now has his name on it).
* His bill to make the federal budget far more transparent and accessible to Americans via the Internet - we could use that openness in Texas.
* And his vital work with Republicans to lock down nuclear weapons around the world.

Of course, it would have helped to remember all of this last night. I encourage anyone who wants to know more (especially Mr. Matthews) to log onto texas.barackobama.com.

In the meantime, let's not lose focus on what's important in this election. It's not my stunning televised defeat in "Stump the Chump." Thankfully, it has nothing at all to do with me.

What's important is the direction our country is headed. What's important are the priorities, methods, and, yes, accomplishments of those seeking the highest office in the country.

Senator Obama has a vision for this nation, and we would be fortunate to fulfill it. He has the commitment to work with everyone from across the political and demographic spectrum to achieve it. And he has the strength to defend us, our security, and our values against all who will challenge them.

But most of all, he has the record to prove that all of this is possible. It's something no one should forget.

Other than charm and his borrowed rhetoric why is Obama such a sensation? It's laughable to read than even when Obama blows his nose people applaud. We seem to avoid sound candidates and go for the cheerful, inspiring ones that lack substance. I'm proud to be an independent thinker and someone who is not following the Obama herd. I'm not impressed by his hollow rhetoric or his thousand fans screaming "yes we can" but can't finish the sentence. Hillary is fit to the president of this country for she's got substance and what it takes to lead from day 1. I really hope Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania halt Obama big mo. and set the stage to have the first most capable American woman to be in charge. Vote logically and leave passion and fetish for less serious business. Vote Hillary.

If we assume that the 6 events all need to come true in order for Hillary to win, and we make reasonable estimates of the probability of each of the 6 events, we can estimate the overall probability of her winning.

I make the following guesses at the probabilities for each of the 6 events --- P(1)=0.80, P(2)=0.40, P(3)=0.50, P(4)=0.25, P(5)=0.10, and P(6)=0.25. While one could argue with the specific values of my estimates, using them produces a conditional probability of all 6 events of .001.

That is, Hillary is likely to prevail with this strategy 1 time in a thousand --- given my admittedly somewhat arbitrary estimates.

So true, hard it is. To keep afloat a ship. During gale storm winds on high seas. So true hard also! To keep afloat, a sinking political party. During perilous time of mutinous mutiny. On torrential high stake political waters.

Poor ole full of integrity, highest of high morals, honorables Lincoln, Nixon & Reagan. Must be looking down in utter, grievous disgust of apathy. At present day GOP's sunken, lost at sea political ship. Void a skillful sea worthy captain, absent a forward rudder of knowledge to guide it, drifting aimlessly listless on shredded compromised sails, amiss quality deck hands to keep it afloat. For ten years now.

Forever now lost at sea, beyond public's redemptive resurrection. Left to float in it's own perpetual mire of corruption's long lost, immoral abyss. Never to sail again! And is only fitting! It's mandated absolute. That a flagship of any sort. Must have a sea worthy, skilled, able captain. To guide and direct it to destiny's port of entry. With equal moral fiber fortitude. To safeguard flagship mates and cargo. Or else you'll sail off course, ending up at wrong port of entry! Or drift aimlessly till it sinks. Or face mutiny on the high seas, during time of peril.

And low and behold! The Grand Ole Party Flagship suffered all three perils, over the last ten years. First by leaving port in 1996. Throwing high intellect, skilled, able, and highly moral principled Pat Buckhannon overboard. Then left port in 2000, with the most dufus of morons, GW Bush at rein of command. Then astoundingly left port once again in 2004. With same nil of intellect, moron GW Bush, still at the helm! And now in 2008, have thrown true conservative golden sheep Allen Keyes and Mike Huckabee overboard also. To make room on board for corruptible wolves, dressed in sheep's clothing McCain and Romney! Inciting other sheepfold sheep on board, to jump ship. And re-board as wolves in sheep's clothing. Overweighting their flagship, sinking it at sea. Unknowing, both true wolves and wolves dressed in sheep's clothing. Weigh far more and are costlier to have on board. Than light weight, light of truth coated sheep.

Thus the Grand Ole Party Flagship is now lost at sea! Drifting in aimless abyss, mutiny running amuck on board. Sheep being thrown overboard, as wolves and mutineers now board in mass. Precariously over weighting flagship. Till it finally sinks, in fall of 2008's graveyard of final resting place. To be recorded and etched in history. As another long lost forgotten political party of the past, such as the Whigs.

What a story for the history books! Yes poor ole Lincoln, Nixon, and Reagan. Must be shaking their fingers from heaven. At these latter day GOP cross dressing wolves and mutinous mutineers, of moral standards, integrity, and honor.

"Truth", Author Rev Ronnie Roy Sr.
Final so true, one reaps what they sow
Destiny assures, one gets what they're owed
History is true, and records all it knows
Opportunity lost, can't redeem what it blows

The American Leadership Project, a 527 is pumping bucks into the Clinton campaign with big CA clients, including the California Democratic Party, Indian tribes with major casinos, General Motors and Dewey Square Group, a national consulting firm.

As Chris has noted elsewhere in The Fix, Michelle Obama as initially misquoted as saying: "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country..."

She actually said: "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country..."

She was merely underscoring her special pride in the exponential growth of political participation that has followed her husband's candidacy. She has always been proud. Concerning the revitalization of our democracy after the Bush dry spell, she's really proud.

Pool lil ole Hillary's campaign for president was buried deep in the mire of "tag alongs" wannabee, from the get go. Her humongous early on lead was facade. Illicitly claimed by both the demo elitists, and the media. But all "hype".

If it wasn't Obama, would've been other variables. From past baggage of the Clinton machinery. Obama was just the fortunate soul to be blessed. To take advantage of Hillary's impossible dream election. And be elevated to forefront. Along with his charisma, his power of oratory to persuade, and likeablility. But if not Obama, would've still been another to Hillary's demise.

Hillary needs to get a real life. And quit he gambit game of playing "futuristic president". Rooted in the tag along of liberalism. That permeates her life. She needs to get a Jr law partnership job, or a realestate brokerage license. And quit the gambit. That she's actually in a position of importance in American politics.

As for her 35 years of experience? At what? She was merely a wife of a president. And elected senator, which she's served as a Jr to a senior Senator of Ny. And never been the author of any major legislation.

Experience? Nah! Solutionist? Nah!

Go get a life, be a realtor Hillary. You'll do fine. Helping beautiful Chelsea raise her futuristic kids.

It's over. The only question that remains is how much shame the Clintons will bring upon themselves in the coming weeks. At some point Hillary has to consider whether she wants to remain relevant as a Senator, and my advice would be to depart this race sooner than later, while you still have a shred of dignity.

Sen. Obama's call for Change and his slogan of Yes We Can are both related to Washington insider politics as it has been played for decades. Sen. Obama calls for a change in the balance of power between special interest lobbyists and the American public at large, seeking to build a coalition of average Americans broad enough and determined enough to pressure Congress for the reforms that keep the parties in deadlock and vital public policies from being enacted.

These policies include: health care coverage for all Americans who want it; and end to tax loopholes that favor businesses that export jobs overseas; curbing excessive oil company profits and the unfettered influence it buys in making policy; enactment of meaningful fuel standards and environmental policy; an honorable and swift end to the war in Iraq that also stabilizes the country and provides security for economic progress. The list goes on and I am telling you this off the cuff, not editing down Sen. Obama's "Plan for America," which you can read at www.barackobama.com

Sen. Obama places great value on every state and every voter. With a competitor as crafty as Sen. Clinton, he cannot afford to overlook votes or states. In fact, his strategy demonstrates a 50-state strategy. Sen. Clinton's is the one predicated on winning large states and ignoring smaller ones.

Sen. Obama's supporters fervently believe the country can do better than the last 7 years. We hope to elect Sen. Obama president because we know he is sincere in wanting to give America back to the people, because he understands the need for economic progress for every American, because he wants to re-establish the rule of law so lost on the Bush administration, and because his plans for securing our citizens and infrastructure are not only doable but vital to our survival.

While those of us who support Sen. Obama are varied in our beliefs about whether Sen. Clinton would be an acceptable substitute for Sen. Obama, we are unflinching in our support for him as the first and best choice for president.

The support that Sen. Obama has enlisted from new voters, young voters, independent voters, crossover Republicans, the disenchanted and the disenfranchised is unique to his candidacy. Indeed, it is unique in modern political history and may evaporate if Sen. Clinton is the nominee.

Sen. Obama's vision of America's possibilities offers the Democratic party an historic opportunity for growth and expansion. Sen. Clinton's candidacy has not attracted this same opportunity. But don't blame that on Sen. Obama.

Say no to Cocaine! Say no to Obama!!!
_________________________________

Soo . . you accused Obama of being a closet case drug abuser out of love? (And jeez, it's you're, not your. Hope you used a spell checker for your Ph.D. dissertation. HTG, I couldn't make _that_ mistake under the influence of cocaine, ecstasy AND ludes. Not that I would know, or anything.)

But today, you're (see? I told you) promising to support said Republicans.

... If Obama gets the nomination, everyone you've insulted, and everyone old enough to remember just how good things were under the Clintons will work to defeat you. We were going to just stay home if Obama got the nomination. Now we'll actively support and campaign for McCain. If Obama is the nominee, Democrats lose the election. That's a promise.

"This was beneath the standards of the NYT, at one time. I do not make this out to be a politicized article. I make it out to be
the selling of sensationalism and rumors of sex. As recently as 1980, the NYT demanded that its reporters have triple separate sourced information. It would not have published the salacious hints in this article."
--------------------------------

hey Mark,'
i agree. however, the more important matter is the money connection...the fact she was a lobbyist...goes to his credibility, integrity...experience which he is now touting.

the sex angle doesn't interest me...he's not huckabee.

could be to mccain's benefit in the long run if there is nothing behind the innuendo.

If we are to use this campaign to judge organization and managaement skills then Clinton lose by a long shot. She started this campaign as the most recognized of the contenders and had everything at her disposal to to win but arrogance got in the way. Clinton simply thought she would waltz in and by Febuary have the nomination underwraps without having a plan B, C or D in case they failed. Is this the person that we want to run this country when she can't run or organize a campaign. They have blown over $100 million dollars and had to loan her campaign $5 million dollars. Clinton has had the nerve to ridicule voters in other states because they voted by using caucuses and then says that they are little states and do not matter. Well the voters should reject her because all voters and their votes matter. So when you look at her organization and management skills during this campaign do we really want her to run this country? Obama have my vote becuase he has shown good judgement skills, organization and management skills during this campaign.

The suggestion that McCain's "emergence means national security will be the key issue of 2008" fails to take into account the probability that the US economy will be in recession throughout much of the year. Once the r-word rears its ugly head, domestic issues will likely become the primary concern of nervous middle-class voters. Under such circumstances, what will the Republicans offer us? More tax cuts? Increased defense spending? Delirious flag waving? Not exactly the kind of stuff to inspire confidence in the electorate.

If Clinton should already be out of the race at the mid-point, when in overall delegates she is at 48%, someone please respond to these concerns:

When Obama talks about "change", what exactly is the change? When he says, "yes, we can!" We can what? And if the answer is "change", it all starts to sound very circular.

The number of Hillary Clinton supporters who outright say that they will not support Obama is small, but it is there. I feel that a number of these voters will vote for McCain.

On the other hand, Obama is bringing in a certain number of first-time voters, who seem to be there simply to support him. It does not seem likely that they would further vote for McCain if it's Mrs. Clinton instead. It sounds like they would just stay home.

Either way, it doesn't sound like Obama creates a winning coalition. It sounds like his followers and he alienate approximately half of his political party, drive many voters into the arms of McCain, and end up with the liberal rump of voters that couldn't get McGovern, Mondale or even Dukakis anywhere.

And this doesn't even go to the anti-democratic undercurrent, that Obama supporters simply feel that the votes of all the other states where Demcoratic primaries have not taken place do not count.

To an earlier poster: Passing or failing the DC bar (the hardest one, where most DC members get a state license and transfer in) is almost a ludicrous point versus these very contemproary concerns.

If this was merely inspiration beating perspiration, maybe Clinton would have a play. But the lady whose main argument that she is more prepared to be President is being out-maneuvered and out-organized. Obama is beating her in every political metric that counts -- and Clinton I and Bush have both proven that being President is a political game that doesn't end on the first Wednesday in November.

I've been stunned by the lackluster effort on Team Clinton's part. I thought these people were supposed to be smart.

Interviewer: Well, Ms Hillary...I've been looking over your resume and you DO have alot of experience on the issues that are important to us...

Hillary: YES! I know everything, I am ready and can hit the ground running...DAY ONE!

Interviewer: Yes, well we did check into your track record and you do know that this job calls for leadership, excellent stratgic thinking, excellent communication skills and the ability to bring together and manage an effective executive team.
...And there seem to be a few questions in each of these areas...it seems you recently led a campaign that had a few problems...had some strategy issues, money problems and some staffing issues...yes?

Hillary: Oooh no...what you are referring to are stories made up by the media ... don't worry about that. Let me tell you the real secret strategy...we call it the super-delegate end run...that whole campaign was just window dressing to let the little people think that they were going to decide...imaging that...oh what a bore...we skipped the caucuses because that was just tooooo much bother...anyway we had the whole thing locked up with backroom deals with the supper-delegates. All that talk about changing the system...soooo so naive...let me tell you that I know how things really get done in Washington and how to do it!

Interviewer: Hmmm, well we are looking for something a bit more refreshing...like a new start, a new direction...

Hillary: No problem, tell me what you want and we can create a spin message around it in no time..

Interviewer: Well, we are looking for reality...not spin...ok, lets not drag this out...I am afraid we can't offer you the job...there is a need for new thinking and a new leadership style...and your qualfications don't match up...thank you for your interest and we will call you if anything comes up.

So far, Hillary has shot herself in the foot every time she tried to change the rules or "re-define" the race (she must be getting help from Bill, who is the master of equivocation - "that depends on what you mean by...").

No one I know of is experienced at being President, except a President. Being his wife does not count, any more than being the wife of a dentist qualifies one to examine, drill, fill or extract.

Michelle Obama is refreshingly direct. I knew immediately what she meant by 'for the first time in my life I am proud...' There are not very many things about the past 16 years, at least, to make one feel pride in being American, no matter how much one loves this wonderful country. I love American as much as anyone I can name, and I for one want it to be better. I am not proud that we have become torturers and aggressors, or that our past President was a sexual predator/deviate, ala Monica Lewinski. That disgusts me.

Bill's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," and W's many poor excuses and lies to support getting off point in going after Ben Ladin and picking off the 'low hanging fruit' in Iraq both made me feel considerably less than 'proud' when I spoke with my friends from other lands.

Michelle Obama has every right to feel pride that America has begun to shake off the last remnants of its racist history and may well nominate a person whose ancestry is half African. Please make a note there is only one race, and that is human. Otherwise there are classes and shades of brown.

So... one point at at time

1. If either candidate emerges with the necessary 2,025, it will be Obama. Without a doubt he will emerge with a higher count than Hillary.

2. Two weeks is a long time, indeed. Much longer when your numbers are falling. I live in Texas... she is already in trouble here, and it will get worse for her.

3. Debates matter. In order for them to matter, you first need to win them. Consensus, from what I have read in commentaries, was that the last one was a draw. Hillary cannot win with a draw.

4. More scrutiny for Obama. Damned right! So far that has only helped him! theere is no reason to think that it won't continue to do so. But, let's also scrutinize Hillary. We do have two weeks, you know.

5. John McCain will try to make National Security the issue. If Hillary is the Democrat candidate, she appears to want to allow that to happen. Obama will take his issues to McCain, and McCain will not be able to make a case against them. It is time for a change - another Clinton is no change. Another Skull and Bones is not a change. As good a person as John McCain might be, as heroic as he may have been, he is just another conservative Republican in a country that has had enough. Obama has a great track record in the U.S. Senate and in Illinois. He will prevail, and he will be an excellent choice.

6. Big states - you mean New York and California - have their own problems, but they vote Blue. I mean, even John Kerry carried them. Obama can carry part of the South, most of the Mid West, and all of the blue states on both coasts. Do you seriously believe that because Hillary won the nomination there, California or New York would suddenly become neo-con heaven? Get real.

If I understand right, Mark Penn's (and therefore, Hillary's) campaign is based on a concept he labeled "Microtrends." Obama's campaign is about big aspirations and big ideals - seems pretty obvious why one attracts voters, and the other does not.

wpost, if you read the NYT story I think you will concede that it is unbecoming of any paper other than a tabloid rag. It repeats an unsubstantiated rumor of a liason dangereuse that was denied by both parties in the 1990s. Buried in the story is the fact that McC often voted against the requests of the particular lobbyist. Onthe fourth page, buried:

"...McCain had frequently denied requests from Ms. Iseman and the companies she represented. In 2006, Mr. McCain sought to break up cable subscription packages, which some of her clients opposed. And his proposals for satellite distribution of local television programs fell short of her clients' hopes."

This was beneath the standards of the NYT, at one time. I do not make this out to be a politicized article. I make it out to be
the selling of sensationalism and rumors of sex. As recently as 1980, the NYT demanded that its reporters have triple separate sourced information. It would not have published the salacious hints in this article.

"Frustrated by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's flagging presidential campaign, prominent California Democratic operatives, including a former Clinton White House aide, are organizing an independent campaign aimed at raising millions of dollars to help boost her chances."

The group is led by Roger Salazar and already has an ad running in Ohio. Who would think Hillary and the interests she represents could be that nasty?

SHE'S SWIFTBOATING ONE OF HER OWN! God help us when she starts eating the children.

At some stage, we need to call it a day and become characters for history writers to compile into volumes and stack away in libraries. We need to learn to retire gracefully not to clamor in the endless lust of power. In this respect, I respect all the earlier Presidents and contestants. John Kerry and Al Gore, we deeply respect you for your silence. So also, George Bush, Sr, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, etc, etc..the line is long and graceful - which makes this country great. Let us keep the glamor and the aura of a Presidency and the dignity of office.President Bush with all his faults has a certain grace about him too. Silence is golden and speech is silver.

Obama is a man from nowhere... who managed to raise $150,000,000 in a year.

Inspired 10,000's to do grassroots campaigning for a cause.

Brilliantly planted roots in every state.

Has listed almost one million donors on his website.

Has magaged to win 10 states in a row by an average of 33% each time.

Routinely packs crowds of 17000+ in to his rally's at a clip of 2 to 3 a day.

Has increasingly cut in to his preordainded winner's base of support, while continuing to build his own broad base.

And Hillary's camp has a plan to make her comeback? The question should be why hasn't some one had the courage to tell her to fold the tent and leave quietly?

If it was Obama in her postition that is exactly what the DNC would be suggesting. I am not impressed with their lack of courage. But I have tremendous faith in the man who panders hope to carry the day.

No, the Clinton plan as outlined will not work. Her message, such as it is, is not strong enough to move people in her direction. It is a safe, carefully crafted message of someone who is the front runner and presumptive nominee, not someone who is behind and getting darn behinder. How many times, how very many times, have we heard "ready from day one"? I'm ready to scream from day one. I'm already tired of the Clinton II presidency and it is not even here.

Mrs. Clinton is a smart, dedicated and hard working U.S. Senator, but I fear that she learned all of the wrong lessons from the hammering she and her husband took for more than eight years. Lesson #1: never take chances. #2. Pick a message and stick with it, don't go off script. #3. Hate the media cause they hate you. #4. Assemble a small staff of bright people and let them build walls around themselves and you so that you won't have to listen to contrary advice or ideas. #5. The Clinton story, and the story of the Clintons, represents an entitlement to leadership which, naturally, results in being in the White House. #6. Policy is more important than passion and ideals.

Bill and Hillary Clinton came to Washington like two happy teenagers and they conspired to give her the job of transforming one of the most difficult, vexing problems in America, health care. She was introduced to the nation not as a first lady, but as a back room deal maker who couldn't get the deal done. Perhaps a third or more of the nation's voters remember those events in a deeply unfavorable light, but Senator Clinton persists in talking about "35 years of experience", when she has only been in office for one term plus just more than a year.

Is watching a president make decisions the same thing as doing it yourself? Of course not. If it were, any member of the White House press corps could be called on at any given moment to take over a major role.

Perhaps the biggest mistake of the Clinton campaign was to believe that the historic opportunity to put a woman in the White House would be motivation enough for a vast segment of voters. For most people, that might represent the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

Where is Mrs. Clinton's message? What does she want to do in the presidency, other than impart to the world her and Bill's version of enlightenment? Since she voted for the Iraq war and for the Patriot Act, what could we expect on these fronts? Fearing the right and the charge of weakness on national defense, she has, as yet, been unable to give a full, complete answer as to why she voted for the war. (The explanation that "no one" expected Bush to use the Senate resolution as a means to wage preemptive war is as weak as wet tissue paper.)

The only way Senator Clinton has a chance is to risk throwing away her chance and to speak clearly and directly to the American people. Is she willing to let down her guard? Is she willing to allow the nation to she her as a person, not just a tightly controlled candidate? Hey, staff, what's the plan on this?

It was mentioned on Wisconsin Public Radio this morning that in this snow-bound state, the freezing weather and icy roads may have kept some older voters from the polls - and many older Democrats tend to support Hillary. Wisconsin's primary used to be in April - maybe we'll go back to that.

JayMax: Just want to clear up one of your comments. Obama did not vote against the war. He was in the Illinois Senate in 2002 when the vote on the Iraq resolution was taken. However, when the Senate voted on the IRAN resolution within the past couple of months, he didn't go to Washington to cast his vote. He stayed on the campaign trail. He spoke out against that resolution because he thought it was the same as the Iraq resolution, and Bush may try to use it as approval to get into combat with Iran. But he made a conscious decision to skip the vote instead of voting against it.

mchlr32 had few good points, but the press hasn't given Obama a free ride. Far from it. He's been extensively reported on by the Chicago Tribune and the world's largest news operations. Though disappointing to HRC supporters who can't wait for the dirt to rise, there just isn't any "there" there.

His record has not received much press attention, but neither has the record of Hillary -- and with 35 years of "experience," she has quite a record. But the press already knows of it and largely ignores it.

justrikke wrote: "Democrats need to wake up and realize that the last time an entire nation went "gaga" over a charismatic leader who mesmerized people with hope and beauty it caused WWII."

This is hilarious. FDR caused WWII. Of course that was in 1941 that the USA entered the war, during his third term. If indeed the poster means FDR and WWII. Probably a misprint for JFK and the Bay of Pigs. Get out the history book and go back to second grade!

I believe she will win TX, OH, and PA but the key will be by how much. If she wins by small margins, it will be as if she lost. She needs to win by 10 points plus in each state. This is possible. She was able to do it in CA when the numbers looked like they were going Obama's way. She has to get some terrific headlines on the 5th. "Clean Sweap," "Clinton Wins Big." Anything less will not stop Obama.
Karl Warrington

Texas is done with big margin for Obama.
I was in reunion arena downtown Dallas where 20,000+ pledged to Obama since 8 AM. Chelsea had 300-400 audiences in the UTD at the same time.
Given more time (13 days) Obama can increase his lead as he did in the past. Clinton only wins on her name recognition when the schedule was too tight for Obama to campaign in CA, NY (Feb.5). She is history, and Bill helped me makeup my mind since his negative comment of fairy tale.

Good reporting - her advisors have to come up with something - anything plausible - to keep their (well paid) jobs. Her problem is that the public has moved on. Her message is no longer being listened to, despite whatever new "paint jobs" are applied. And Bill is one big money grubber: $50 Million of personal earnings since leaving office plus a real affinity for guys who loan him their jet planes (source: Bloomberg article). Billery Inc. is their objective - too late, for we've already had enough of Bush Family Inc.

I think it can work...but it's an uphill climb. It's hard to attack Obama when everytime they do, they are called mean spirited or racist. The media has ignored any negative stories on Obama (they are out there). The truth is that much of this nation are sheep that will blindly follow any voice crying out in the wilderness...even if that voice says nothing of substance. Hillary had a lot of African American support until CNN created the racial divide. The "Independents" and Republicans that are supporting Obama are simply doing so to get Hillary out of the race, because they know that Obama is ignorant of how to run this country. They will all go with McCain when the main election starts. Democrats need to wake up and realize that the last time an entire nation went "gaga" over a charismatic leader who mesmerized people with hope and beauty it caused WWII. If Obama wins the nomination, I will think nothing about abandoning the Democratic Party and voting for McCain. At least he has experience. Putting Obama in office would be like putting a two year old in the drivers seat of a semi.

I'll tell you what disappoints and disgusts me as much as and often more than the trio from yester-year, it's the developmentally arrested Hillary haters full of sexism and misogyny with absolutely no sense of her talents, strengths, history of service, accomplishments and as the NYT stated, "powerful intellect."

OK, I'll bite: enlighten me. She failed the DC Bar, she failed to enact health care reform, she helped the GOP gain control of Congress for the first time since Eisenhower (or was it Truman?) and I am unaware of any major legislation she's enacted in eight years (although she's renamed an awful lot of parks, bridges and post offices). Her campaign couldn't be more inept, and she'll probably set the record for most money spent by a losing candidate. _A BLACK GUY_ is beating her nationally, for God's sake. What, she has a "powerful intellect" because the New York Times says so? The New York Times, that employed Jayson Blair (talk about your plagiarism)?

And why do I need to be reminded why HRC is all that, when it is _clearly evident_ that Obama is all that -- Harvard Law, Law Review President, author of two best selling books, _painfully_ candid and honest (the worst stuff about him is from his books, not Hillary's OR), committed enough to turn down lucrative law firm jobs and Supreme Court clerkships for the low pay and long hours as a community organizer, and a brilliant politician? Seriously, what about HRC am I missing?

Consider Hillary. She's so good man, dis country of ours`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Consider Hillary. She's so good man, dis country of ours`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Molly Ivins, the late liberal political columnist who famously nicknamed George W. Bush "Shrub" back in the day, said it best: "Never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to screw up."

The Democratic Party has its best chance in a generation to remake the political landscape and become our nation's majority party once more--with dominance of the White House and both houses of Congress-- and it is seriously in jeopardy of pis**ing it all away and paving the way for a President McCain to take the oath on Jan. 20, 2009.

A few observations:

1) The Clintons have run a generally lousy campaign. They seriously underestimated Obama and generally behaved as if the primaries were a five-month coronation ball. Bill Clinton playing the race card may well turn out to be 2008's "macaca" moment.

2) Obama has run a generally good campaign--aided and abetted, it must be said, by press coverage decidely biased in his favor and decidedly anti-Hillary Clinton. The Clintons did themselves few favors with the press, but still. Obama has gotten an essentially free ride.

3) The whining about superdelegates "reflecting the will of their voters" is absurd. First of all, the party rules are the party rules. Superdelegates vote their conscience, period. One superdelegate who switched sides from Clinton to Obama cited the fact that his congressional district voted for Obama (overwhelmingly) instead of Clinton. The idea that members of Congress should always vote exactly as their constituents wish without thinking for themselves is absurd. If the superdelegates put Clinton over the top, so be it. If the superdelegates put Obama over the top, so be it. There is nothing in the party rules that states the winner must have a majority of primary delegates. If this process is flawed, change the rules for the 2012 race.

4) Until Clinton or Obama capture the requsite number of delegates to win the nomination, neither candidate should drop out of the race.

5) The rancor and bitterness demonstrated by supporters on both sides is disappointing. Hillary Clinton is not entitled to the nomination because of her last name, but neither is Barack Obama entitled to the nomination because of his inspiring oratory.

6) A "unity ticket" of Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton should be seriously considered. A combination of inspiration and experience. So what if they can't stand each other? A Democratic victory in November demands some personal sacrifices.

"There will be 13 days without a single vote between today and Ohio/Texas"

Perhaps before the votes are counted. But not before they are cast. Texas and Ohio are already doing early voting... and I'm surprised that you aren't acknowledging that significant factor in modern elections.

Obama has a slight lead (52% to 48%) at this point in total delegates. But his campaign following is already calling on Mrs. Clinton to quit the race.

Mrs. Clinton's campaign says that the big states are significant, but the Obama campaign seems to be saying that the states that haven't voted yet are insignificant.

Traditionally, the Convention, not "the primaries" or "the caucus goers" decide who the candidate will be. The sentiment in the Obama camp seems to be that if their guy does not get it, then they will not support the ticket.

In the Clinton camp, the sense is that the people who prefer Hillary Clinton will support Obama. But the big unknown are those who have reservations about him and would instead vote for McCain.

Other than "change", no one knows what Obama stands for. What does he stand for?

It sounds like what is for is for himself, and "change" is what is put out there so that he doesn't have to say he is for himself and whatever he will choose to do at some unspecified time in the future.

I am not sure that the voters will support this. In fact, I eense that if the choice is "change" with Obama, and "change" with John McCain, people are going to feel more confident that John McCain actually has a platform.

McCain doesn't seem to be saying, "pick me and then I will tell you the details after you vote."

I think the way Obama decided to try and win this nomination is basically to set things up so that John McCain wins.

Pie in the sky BS like this can only come from a bunch of Washington insiders! Talk about out of touch! Clinton's support in every demographic group is eroding. Obama is bringing thousands of new voters to every primary. Voters who had become apathetic to the Bush/Clinton/Bush politics of self indulgence and hyper-brinksmanshp.
They are now inspired by someone raised by a single mother; organized in the streets of Chicago; who stands up to the lobbyists and special interests. Someone with vision for a better America, not the same old hyperpartisanship we have had to endure with these most SELF INDULGENT political dynasties.

a) Please cite the "personal attacks against [you]" that you refer to.

b) Please cite any Obama supporter who has claimed that Sen. Obama is "divine" or in any way has god-like powers. We'll take any claims to the same by the candidate himself.

You must at least concede that those of us who support Obama are doing God's work since, by your own statement, God is a Democrat. Doesn't your recent threat/promise to support McCain make you, by your own measure, a servant of the Antichrist?

Better run and hire some more HLR Presidents. Is your company like John Grisham's The Firm?

How can anyone who wasn't living under a rock during Bill Clinton's presidency even contemplate voting for Hillary? Are your collective memories so short? A few of Hillary's finer moments:
1. "Vast right-wing conspiracy" to frame her husband regarding his extracurricular activities with Monica.
2. The first First Lady to come under criminal investigation.
3. Number of times Hillary Clinton says "I don't recall" or its equivalent in a statement to a House investigating committee: 50. Number of paragraphs in this statement: 42.
4. Rose law firm billing records, sought for two years by congressional investigators and the special prosecutor were found in the back room of the personal residence at the White House. Clinton said she had no idea how they got there.
5. Participation in a Whitewater related land deal became suspicious enough to trigger an investigation by the Arkansas Supreme Court.
6. Hillary gave false testimony about her co-defendant Ira Magaziner, who helped her conduct secret meetings about her failed plan to socialize U.S. medicine.

Hillary isn't fit for her current role as a senator, let alone someone to lead this country.

First Chris, let me say Happy Birthday, and I hope you have many, many more!
I don't think Hillary's old/newer this time, strategy will work, because as negative adds have worked well in the past, after eight years(counting the negative and fear tactics of the election of Bush II prior to taking office) the American voters are so turned off by negative attacks, that it will hurt Hillary, and make her look desperate, as well as one of the very things that has given the "Obama Movement" its boost, and that is politics as the same old balderdash that we have had to put up with for at least the last eight years.

The experience tactic has not worked as well, (thank God, because if I hear the "for 35 years" remark one more time I think I'll puke) nor has the "ready on day one," when Obama came back with not only being ready, but being "right" on day one.

The one area that seemed to work for Senator Clinton was the crying and having her feelings hurt. My advice is she should come out and tell voters that if they don't vote for her, it will hurt her feelings, and make her cry.
Juballl

Hillary supporters will vote for Obama because we believe in the Democratic Party - not because we believe in Mr. Obama.
Now when you say that many blacks will not vote for Hillary which has been proved since SC -- is this not reverse racism?

-----------

not necessarily.

Bill and Hillary have lost the black vote, not because they are white, but because they insulted and denigrated the African-American community with their remarks.

And I believe many Hillary voters will vote for Obama if only to protect the Supreme Court.

I have seen no evidence that sexism is behind the a majority of the lack of support for Hillary. She has enormous baggage from her 35 years...all prefectly valid reasons to withold support.

That racism and sexism wil be part of the vote is clear....but not to the extent that it will torpedo either Hillary or Obama should they receive the nomination.

Remember, there are 16 serving female senators (35 historically). There is ONE African-American male (FOUR historically.)

Although women make up 50% of the population and African-Americans 13%, it seems clear to me that the black/white divide is much more critical than the male/female divide.

First Chris, let me say Happy Birthday, and I hope you have many, many more!
I don't think Hillary's old/newer this time, strategy will work, because as negative adds have worked well in the past, after eight years(counting the negative and fear tactics of the election of Bush II prior to taking office) the American voters are so turned off by negative attacks, that it will hurt Hillary, and make her look desperate, as well as one of the very things that has given the "Obama Movement" its boost, and that is politics as the same old balderdash that we have had to put up with for at least the last eight years.

The experience tactic has not worked as well, (thank God, because if I hear the "for 35 years" remark one more time I think I'll puke) nor has the "ready on day one," when Obama came back with not only being ready, but being "right" on day one.

The one area that seemed to work for Senator Clinton was the crying and having her feelings hurt. My advice is she should come out and tell voters that if they don't vote for her, it will hurt her feelings, and make her cry.
Juballl

According to GovTrack.us, Hillary has sponsored 354 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 307 haven't made it out of committee (87 percent). Two bills were successfully enacted IN SEVEN YEARS. I'm not sure I would call that "solutions," but then again two is more than one, which is precisely the number of bills sponsored by Barack Obama that have become law.

Chris Matthews hammered an Obama lackey on TV for Obama's legislative record -- "name one, just one accomplishment" -- but he should be taking Hillary to task too. What has SHE done other than flap her gums and live off the public dole for seven years -- 15 years if you count her time in the White House?

For the record, Obama has sponsored 129 bills since Jan 4, 2005, and 120 (93 percent) haven't made it out of committee. Nice work, Obama! I can really see you bring people together. You can't even muster enough votes to get your bills through committees your own party controls.

The D-train comes to a crashing halt in Denver, when Hillary tries to get the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated and the blacks riot. It's going to be a beautiful train wreck.

First Chris, let me say Happy Birthday, and I hope you have many, many more!
I don't think Hillary's old/newer this time, strategy will work, because as negative adds have worked well in the past, after eight years(counting the negative and fear tactics of the election of Bush II prior to taking office) the American voters are so turned off by negative attacks, that it will hurt Hillary, and make her look desperate, as well as one of the very things that has given the "Obama Movement" its boost, and that is politics as the same old balderdash that we have had to put up with for at least the last eight years.

The experience tactic has not worked as well, (thank God, because if I hear the "for 35 years" remark one more time I think I'll puke) nor has the "ready on day one," when Obama came back with not only being ready, but being "right" on day one.

The one area that seemed to work for Senator Clinton was the crying and having her feelings hurt. My advice is she should come out and tell voters that if they don't vote for her, it will hurt her feelings, and make her cry.

Read the comments, svreader. Obama supporters don't somehow have it in for Clinton supporters (many of my friends are supporting Sen. Clinton, and I respect their views). We're all on the same side and should all be ready to support the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is. But people may react badly to your posts, because they are invariably shrill, nasty, and divisive. That's your problem.

The International Union of women over 50 making less than $40,000 annually is getting ready to endorse the failing candidacy of Hillary Clinton tomorrow in a clear defiance of the national polling trends favoring Barack Obama, who has begun sneezing to wild acclaim in Texas, the next battleground state. Look, we are listening to Ickes, Penn, and Wolfson spin a tale of such unbelievable probability as to defy common sense. Even Bill put it on the line tonight: win Texas and Ohio or you're done, Hilly. She's done. Nobody in their right mind would dare argue in front of cameras in Denver that Mrs. Clinton could possibly prevail in her once inevitable campaign to become the first lady to have a first husband who was once her only reason for being in politics. ain't gonne happen. i don't know what kind of koolaid the clintonites are drinking but it's affecting everybody who listens to them.

As an overseas observer I am struggling to understand a few things about Obama, namely.

Obama is recognised as basing his candidacy on making vague yet sweeping promises. Even he admits this I believe, his defence being something about having hope. Yup hope is a strong foundation for a commander in chief!

Hmmm.

When your intelligence agencies are telling you that Iraq is 'with some certainty' making WMD and supporting international terrorism, how can anyone be proud of the fact that they objected to the war. The fact that the intelligence was wrong does not forgive the fact that inaction would have been contemptable under those circumstances.

What would Obama have done?...politely ask Iraq to stop?

Hmmm.

Obama would quickly (ie recklessly) withdraw troops out of Iraq, an action that would quite probably result in civil war in Iraq and possibly the entire region.

Very bad for people in the middle east (but then again they dont have a vote so i guess he doesnt care) and probably very bad for Americans because IF it turns particularly nasty there, Americans will get the blame again. How much hate can you lot handle?

If we do not wake up and remember that Barack and Hillary are on the same side we might blow the best opportunity we have had to place a Dem in the White House since 1996.

I am disheartened to see HRC supporters saying they will never vote for Barack. I am also concerned that if HRC pulls this out, Barack's supporters may stay home.

Ultimately, this is truly not about either one of them-it is about us and whether we have the focus and determination to take our country back.

We are still paying for the fact that LBJ allowed himself to be pushed out-all these years we have had a right wing Court instead of an extension of the Warren Court. That happened before many of Obama's supporters were even here! That is the potential power and legacy of what a President can do to the US Supreme Court. We simply cannot allow that to happen again.

Let's be civil and respectful to each other and remember we need to stay together to prevail in the general election. If you have trouble controlling your passion, remember-it is not Barack or Hillary against each other- it is either one of them against a man who has become a Bush clone, except he is even farther to the right in his foreign policy ideas! Everything we value in terms of Civil and Human Rights depends on stopping the Supreme Court from becoming a Roberts-Scalia lead majority.

I live in Texas and it's looking like at best HRC can get slightly over 50% with a really high Hispanic turnout. Additionally, the election day caucus rules may heavily favor Obama in the delegate count. Don't be surprised if Obama wins Texas. His even today in Dallas went over extremely well, and I understand he really knocked them out in Austin too. I have a feeling he will win Texas.

By the way, there are quite a few Republicans here he will vote Obama in the General. A lot of the middle class Republican support here has dried up as people are really starting to feel the pinch from energy prices and the housing market. That's saying a lot because this a very Republican state. It's probably not in play for the Democrats come November, but the Republicans are going to have a real uphill battle this time.

And I might add no Republican I know is worried about Iraq. They want out and they want the economy to be issue #1.

"will someone please explaing to me why we identify bill clinton as william jefferson clinton, and we have never heard obama called by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama. is he not proud of his name? or is he trying to hide it from all to know?"

Well, for one, we generally don't. He's normally referred to as Bill Clinton. Two, I think he likes using the Jefferson and encourages it on formal occasions. How many people know that Al Gore's middle name is Arnold? Or that John McCain's name is Sidney. Or that Mitt Romney's first name is really Willard. Trying to emphasize his middle name when he doesn't use it is cheap politics, and you should be ashamed of yourself!

As I'm sure the rest of the comment writers/regular fix readers are, I'm a classic political junkie's and I appreciate Chris sharing with us the details of a conference call that we otherwise wouldn't hear about. If we can't work out the spin and garbage coming out of either campaign then we haven't been paying attention over the past 18 months.

wpost4112- And I still believe that at the end of the day, Hillary's supporters will vote for Obama because there is an almost certain probability that he will appoint another one or two Alitos and women will lose their right to choose.

However, many blacks will not vote for Hillary because they are largely socially conservative and against abortion, gays, etc. and do not see a downside to McCain the way women will.

-----------------------------------
Hillary supporters will vote for Obama because we believe in the Democratic Party - not because we believe in Mr. Obama.
Now when you say that many blacks will not vote for Hillary which has been proved since SC -- is this not reverse racism?

I would like to see Hillary come out and say: "if I don't win both Ohio and Texas then I will respectfully withdraw from the nomination." This would be putting it all out there and letting the voters of two of the 'big states' determine whether or not the campaign continues.

Chris, are you getting paid by HRC's campaign for regurgitating her talking points? How does this qualify as journalism?

The fact that Hillary has to "reinvent" herself for the umpteenth time is a symbol of the phony, contrived rhetoric and general make-up of her campaign...35 years of experience..yeah, right...."Solutions Business"....hmm..hmm..."Day One"....okay..

When is this person going to realize that people just don't like her and don't appreciate how she's riding someone else's coattails to higher office?

Even if she wins in the upcoming states, it will not be by a resounding margin and Obama will be able to hold her off. Wisconsin says it all. Obama beat her in almost every cross-section of voters (i.e. white men, african-americans, the educated, and youth). Hillary won voters over 65 and women. But Obama even closed in on Hillary's edge over women. Ohio is next and unlike Wisconsin there is a substantial African-American population there. I think that when Hillary looks back on what went wrong two things will stand out. One, the voters are weary of the Clinton baggage and wish to start over with a new candidate. Although there's a good argument that three months into office the conservatives will start their 8 year attack on Obama as "the liberal" blank blank. Somehow people don't relaize that no matter who takes office from the Democrats, the conservatives will spin their attack machine relentlessly. Second, I think that Hillary has a good argument that the media did not set the bar that high for Obama. For instance, while it is perfectly natural to attack political opponents, Obama got a lot of help from the press who basically villified her anytime she attacked Obama's weaknesses. In short, the media idealized Obama because its hard to remain impartial when you're covering Obama on the trail.

fourhourelection, you have a point, but try the bigger picture: Posting the Clinton campaign's DESPERATE Blueprint (per jamdn463) is like posting an old Politburo press release on international relations. It works as propaganda only. Like the Politburo, the Clinton campaign wants to distort it's true intentions by mixing it with a little truth. They would never release their full battle plan!

But you can bet their fax machines are whirring to set the agenda. It's the same thing they've done to Obama all along: They want to define reality for voters by controlling the agenda, tossing out a new story for the press daily, framing the debate in favorable terms and painting Obama as weak.

Nothing speaks about Hillary's lust for power as loudly as her tactics.

"I'd say it's one of the worst run campaigns in modern political history, and she is one of the better candidates. That's the irony - that she turned out to be a pretty darn good candidate."

Alter told the audience gathered at Nathan's in the heart of the Georgetown neighborhood in Washington, D.C. on February 20 he thought many of the people running Clinton's campaign took her nomination for granted. Obama's campaign, he said, had more people on the ground.

He predicted Obama to win, but said not to count Clinton out completely. He did admit to saying earlier in the day on the Ed Shultz radio show that Hillary Clinton "could go out classy or could go out ugly."

------

Can't blame the guys for this one....Hillary's first campaign manager was a woman and so is her current one.

At the end of the day, Hillary has to get more actual primary votes (not just delegates) than Obama. He is so far out front now, that - if the process ends and he still has the lead, but the "super-duper delegates" (read party big shots) give the nomination to her, the streets will fill with young Democrat primary voters, African-American voters and other unwashed Moveon.org-types who will accuse the Clintons of doing to them what they feel the Supreme Court did to Al Gore and his supporters. Forget it. It will not fly. The newly expanded Democrat voting base will not only refuse to vote for Hillary in the general, they will agitate against her rendering up memories of Chicago '68

Top Clinton team advisers added, "And if our 6 point plan doesn't work, we will resort to PLAN B."

The news reporter dutifully prodded, "And what is PLAN B?"

The advisor answered, "Why, I'm glad you asked. That is our secret weapon. The one that can't fail. That would be your next president of the United States sobbing in front of the camera, showing her sensitive side. Yes sir! Hillary will show her sobs of change.. Hillary will show her sobs of action.. Hillary will show her sobs of patriotism. And no sir! Do not listen to the other guy. Our camp doesn't believe in words.. we believe in SOBS. So if our candidate gets pushed into a corner, you'll hear us loud and clear, "NOW SOB, HILLARY, SOB! YOU GO GIRL! SOB ONE FOR THE DEMOCRACY!""

1) Who didn't know neither candidate would reach 2,025 delegates by the convention? (How much are Clinton consultants getting paid for that "realization"?)

2) You mean to tell me that with 18 debates, hundreds of rallies and nonstop news coverage, Hillary still needs the next two weeks to make her case? If her case hasn't been made by now, two weeks is not going to make a difference.

4) So the Clintons are cackling over a cauldron, hoping the politics of personal destruction will be Obama's undoing? That's just ugly. Besides, if the Clintons couldn't find the dirt, there probably isn't any.

5) Don't the Clintons think the voters realize by now that McCain has more national security experience than Obama? It doesn't seem to matter to them.

6) Clearly, just winning big states isn't enough. If it were, Hillary would be the frontrunner.

There's a part of me that feels sorry for Hillary. She's losing her grip on the nomination day by day and her paid consultants are telling her to keep doing the same thing she's been doing essentially.

I'm not sure how they got to the "Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) emergence means national security will be the key issue of 2008." I think the more accurate way to phrase that is "Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz) campaign will try to make national security the key issue of 2008." But the big issue of 2008 will undoubtedly be the economy. Ignore it at your own peril.

Also, on the whole "Big States Matter" bit. Sure they matter - they also matter quite a bit when the votes are proportionately divided like most Dem contests are. We're not in the general election and to make the leap that winning a state somehow means that 100% of the state's support is behind you is ridiculous spin meant to distract voters from understanding the nuances of the process (by both campaigns, by the way). I hope that this theme gets ignored as the non-issue that it is.

Hillary Clinton shows us more by her actions then anything she can ever say. As one of many instances in this Primary race, she goes to a state like Wisconsin, pleads, cajoles and calls on its citizens to support her: to get out the vote, knock on doors, declaring all the time what an important and pivotal State it is etc... and like a drunken one night stand, after she is roundly beaten, leaves and forgets about them the next day without so much as a thanks to the staff and folks who worked their backsides off for her.... Nary an acknowledgement to the hundreds of thousands of regular folk who slogged thru rain and sleet to offer her support. she doesn't have the decency to say, " We lost last night but thanks, I will be back and you are not forgotten." No wonder she feels stuck in the past like part of the political establishment that promises everything and magically forgets... If she were to be the Democratic Presidential candidate I hope those States that she has dissed, remember her callousness... Her new slogan should be, "I'll love ya only if I win!"

The Big State strategy is misguided because all of the big states she has won so far were states she'd been campaigning in for years. That Obama made those races so competitive in such a short period of time says more about his successful strategy than hers. Put Michigan and Florida back in play and make them caucus like the party had done in a previous election, and no doubt Obama would take those.

But Clinton has already made some major gaffs in TX (not understanding their electoral process), and PA (not getting all delegates put on the ballot in time). How can she be ready on day one when she's not even ready in the primaries? How is that for foresight or judgment?

The only way she can take this is with Rove-style swift boat attacks, or some other "scorched earth" scheme. She can't do it on her own merits, nor with her strategists' Johnny-Come-Lately plan.

Gee, ds11, if you know BO well enough to call him Barry he must be your friend and you should be nicer to him.

Your statements are so one-sided and partisan that they actually persuade people reading them to veer in Obama's direction, because we instinctively know that anyone spouting your kind of rhetoric has some kind of psychological disorder. Is that your intention?

Marketing 101: Vigorous promotion of a defective product simply increases the velocity at which the marketplace discovers the defect and rejects the product. Ten years ago, when the ski lifts were old and tired and the air service into Telluride was lousy, we understood we had to fix the product, not increase the advertising budget.

The fundamental problem with the HRC campaign is the product. If you were casting a big budget feature film (let's say it's going to be The American President) and you had one choice of star for the leading role, Michael Douglas or HRC, who do you pick? Let's say you can't get Michael Douglas, but you can get Will Smith? Go with Will Smith or HRC? Now you can't get Will Smith but you can get Brad Pitt, do you go with Brad Pitt or HRC?

Remember now, it's going to be some of your dough, all of your reputation and all of your ability to launch another film.

Here's the problem: Women of her age can only play battle axes, operators or ingenues. The successful women stars past age 50 all played/play ingenues. Think about it: Angela Lansbury, Ingrid Bergman, Meryl Streep. But HRC can't play ingenue. She's an operator with a very limited vocabulary of expressions and no vocal range whatever. She's inherently, instinctively and irrevocably nasal and banal. Mediocre thoughts conveyed by a mediocre communicator.

Her campaign has hobbled her with terrible choices of clothes, makeup, hair preparation. Remember the LA debate, with her in an awful, icky, brown pantsuit and unwashed flat looking hair? This is someone who schmoozes with Oscar de la Renta but comes out looking like fresh from shopping at Wal-Mart and taking a pass on the time to shampoo her hair.

She's still the prissy girl who played hard to get (and did not get got) from high school. We all knew her: played the clarinet, grubbed out grades way better than her board scores and sucked up to all the teachers and got into a good school based on superior brownie points.

But the problems are fundamental. She's an operator with no range who cannot flirt, cannot communicate, projects a kind of Nixonian phoniness and who had insufficient moral compass to prevent Bill and her other surrogates from race-baiting Barack.

Can they turn it around in two weeks? No chance. They are already voting in Texas. The crossover independents in both states will kill her even if she stays close with Democrats.

The sad thing is that neither she nor Bill has the strength of character or the wisdom to bow out gracefully. Illinois has given us true political greats: Lincoln, Adlai, Paul Douglas, Paul Simon, even Everett McKinley Dirksen and now Obama. But HRC? Nope. Just an operator with no dramatic range. A blonde female Nixon, but without the charm.

"The sad part of it is a couple of days ago you were saying that there was no way you would vote for Hillary if she was nominated. "
-------------------

It's mot sad at all. I've reconsidered since then and am now willing to vote for Hillary. The reason I've reconsidered is that McCain has suddenly lurched right.

His vote to allow torture sealed it.

And I still believe that at the end of the day, Hillary's supporters will vote for Obama because there is an almost certain probability that he will appoint another one or two Alitos and women will lose their right to choose.

However, many blacks will not vote for Hillary because they are largely socially conservative and against abortion, gays, etc. and do not see a downside to McCain the way women will.

Fix - I didn't think this was a mouthpiece-copout like many seem to think (and I'm not a Hillary supporter or tee-shirt mongering). The fix's lines like "Ickes' theory presumes [insert giant, unlikely presumption]" make this a genuine interesting discussion article, not just a Clinton parrot article.

That said, isn't the response to the "Obama flip flopped on taking campaign finance" - to complain about 501c3/527's - the swift boat crowd - and say that Obama needs his money to stave off all those evildoers? Then counter-propose to McCain a pledge to shut up the 501c3/527's (a known impossibility). If and when they don't shut up, you can [payback public financing? and] spend away, honor and pledge intact?

"I feel as if i'm not being heard...and i don't think i'm alone. I am SO sick of Hillary and Obama competing against each other and throwing mud at each other during this campaign...and i'm so tired of the media making that conduct the focus of all articles.

Will someone PLEASE start asking BOTH candidates about issues...how they propose to deal with all the inappropriate privileges assumed by the current executive branch" etc.

las100, you are being heard. I think that you have made the most perceptive critique of anyone here about where the candidates should be focusing their attention. But it is not, unfortunately, in the cards in my opinion. Squabbling with each other and making warm prognostications of how wonderful each candidate's reign will be is all we will hear from now until November. Controversial issues such as executive power, signing statements, etc. bring no benefit to the campaigns and risk alienting the voter, who will perceive the candidate as soft on terror and kowtowing to Congress. It is really difficult to make up one's mind when few substantive issues are being raised.

It won't work. Media seems to not want more scrutiny on Obama. Comment postings even get scanned and deleted if you're
for Clinton. I did a test. Obama has this hipped explanations on everything and his inspired followers buy them. Nothing can destroy him and he'll win to be the next president.

wpost4112 - No Clinton supporter I know of will vote for Obama.
==
Then we're lucky that you know so few. 85% of Clinton voters support Barack as well.
-----------------------------------
The sad part of it is a couple of days ago you were saying that there was no way you would vote for Hillary if she was nominated. Why can't you believe that there are those of us who feel the same way about Mr. Obama. I remember saying that as a Democrat I would support who ever was nominated. That is the attitude all Democrats have to take.

WRONG! ANOTHER LIE/MYTH.
Your candidate wasn't even in the Senate at the time. It is a theoretical hypothetical case of Monday morning quarterbacking. He has stated at other times he doesn't know what he would have done.

If he was so against the war, WHY DID HE CAMPAIGN, FUNDRAISE FOR & SUPPORT WAR HAWK JOE LIEBERMAN over the anti-war democratic candidate that the people of the state of Connecticut chose: NED LAMONT?

When Obama had the chance to IN REALITY (not hypothetically) take a stand AGAINST THE WAR, WITH the VOTERS -- HE FAILED! MISERABLY.

He sided with the REPUBLICAN endorsing turncoat Joe Lieberman. Obama actively supported PRO-WAR Lieberman who turned his back on the democratic voters.

When he had a chance to ACT against the status quo, not merely speechify at it, HE CHOSE THE STATUS QUO. Obama chose the Pro-War candidate of the republicans, the right and the status quo over the clear choice anti-war candidate.

Joe Lieberman, who has now endorsed republican candidate John McCain. That's who Obama supported and stood for.

Give me a break about St. Obama -- and please little children, learn some history and some facts before you spout your self-righteous empty words all over the place.

Your ignorance: priceless and costly. And part of what's wrong with this election.

I find the proposed blueprint underwhelming. The Clinton folks seem stuck facing a candidate who has too thin a background to scratch up enough dirt to notice. The single valid point is the increased scrutiny on his background as the undisputed front runner. We will have to see how Obama manages it His background is limited which may or may not be bad but it at least raises uncertainty.

Sounds like a fairly good plan. I like the big state argument. Also, I believe McCain could pick up the Hispanic vote in the west, which we need to hold. I also think HRC camp needs to work on the white men....see if Joe Montana loves her or something. There are some clear indicators that Hillary being a woman has always made her the underdog...Obama with lipstick wouldn't have a chance at being President. HRC should tap into our patriotism a little more, and finally find young adults with health issues that Obama would block out of his healthcare program and put them on stage. An Edwards endorsement could help a little, too

oh yeah,,,,,,,let's have more of the dynamic duo that brought us a muffed health care initiative [which cost us 15 yrs of missed health care], whitewater, disbarment of a president, mark rich, exploitation of a starstruck girl younger than chelsea, theft of white house property, a former pres. whose maturity is stuck at 18 , whose ego is always on display as has been his willingness to race bait,,,,,,,gee we need more of them,,,,,,,,

She says: "...THANK GOD for superdelegates -- elected officials and party activists who will make a decision based on their insight into the process. Not the silly populace..."

Gee whiz! sabba2. What were thinking with this whole election business? Of course, now it comes to me! Hillary should be queen and you her princess in line to the throne after Chelsea! What a perfect idea! Just give the old heave-ho to the ideas of democracy and representation whenever some suppressed, bitter woman feels her sense of entitlement coming on. Genius!

Observing Bill Clinton's almost daily petulant temper tantrums when an audience member expresses support for the Obama candidacy suggests that Slick is very close to loosing it. The "serial groper" is unable to accept the fact that he's trying to peddle a defective product; i.e. Hillary. This is a woman who hasn't managed so much as a corner vegetable stand, or for that matter her own marriage; but, of course you could count Whitewater, and her tenure as "Madam" for Bill's White House Brothel. So what possibly is there that qualifies Bill's official "Bimbo Containment Chief" for the Presidency? Further, Hillary's increasingly frequent crying jags raises a legitimate concern about her mental stability. But, having meticulously planned their coveted return to the White House for several years now, the Clintons will certainly not exit the scene with grace or dignity. This is the political duo that honed "The Politics Of Personal Destruction" into an artform; and, most certainly will not tolerate, who is in their mind, the "upstart Obama" to derail Hillary's pre-choreographed coronation. Greg Neubeck

Here is part of what the McCain confederates and right wing 527s are going to go at Obama with: tip of the iceberg:

In addition to exploiting Michelle Obama's recent unfortunate --unscripted-- but probably essentially authentic comments -- now one can understand why the Clinton campaign has worked to avoid the unscripted --- candidate McCain himself may not go after these things but the republican party and the swiftboating 527s won't hesitate!

AND this: "Tom Maguire wonders why Jodi Kantor's front-page NYT piece on Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, hasn't generated more controversy. Having now read it, I tend to agree. I'd certainly be more comfortable with a presidential nominee whose main spiritual man
1. hadn't visited Col. Qaddafi --even back in '84;
2. talked less about 'oppression' and this racist United States of America;
3. when discussing the solution to poverty, talked more about individual achievement and less about the role of 'community' -- including maybe even celebrating 'middleclassness' instead of using it as shorthand for selfishness;
4. in general wasn't so obsessed with race--as evidenced most negatively in talk of 'white arrogance' and derogatory reference to the Great White West."

You know that all this kind of attack-dog -- swiftboating -- stuff, and more dirt on the company Obama keeps -- whether it came from Obama himself or not, will be pinned to him by McCain's confederates -- with the same kind of Southern Strategy Blessings that Reagan gave to his party members.

Why do you think these uncomfortable, not-flattering details are so unknown when people are asked by pollsters who is more electable?

Do you really think they WON'T become issues brought front and center as soon as the republicans/527s deem they will do the most damage? i.e. after Obama has the nomination.

Women will have a chance to stop being victims once they stop treating themselves as victims every time someone disagrees with them. I'm sure there are people who won't vote for Sen. Clinton just because she is a women. The vast majority of us who will not vote for her simply do not like or trust her, or her politics, however.

Good luck to Hillary Clinton, and to her advisers with all their wonderful projects. Blueprints will just reveal more of what we already know - some of us matter to Hillary, some don't. Is she going to be the president only of the few that matter? Selective presidency?
Is she that hungry for power that she would not mind snatching the nomination (if she can) not caring for the fact, that most people in America simply do not want her. Obama may not have experience but he does have a heart, and America will be more secure with him as a persident simply because the world will hate us less.

Of course, one study has suggested that when you count only Democratic votes (that is, you exclude Republican and Independent votes), Hillary is winning in the popular vote. But heck, why should we care about the will of Democrats when it comes to the Democratic nomination?

"1. Neither candidate will emerge from the primary fight with the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Ickes, a consummate party insider, insisted that if the race plays out as expected "

Ha... hasn't everyone known this since super Tuesday? I was laughing watching CNN when I realized this is how the math worked... I think they first reported it like 5 days later. Clinton doesn't even have to win any states to make this happen. It's the stupid "proportional" rather than winner take all allotment that causes this.

Unf for Hillary, she ran a campaign more suited to winner take all (gave up the small states and went for the big ones) - dumb!

But regardless it comes down to the superdels and the various pressures on them. By the way you may think the superdels have two options 1) HC and 2) BO, but they have a third - I heard reports that in 1980 rather than decide between Carter and Kennedy, many superdels simply decided not to show up at all!

One suggestion that's not getting any attention here or, in Ballston as we can see, is taking on McCain. Its the only way to get positive light back on her campaign from core dems, and its a way for her to show, instead of just annoyingly repeating over and over, that she has the skills and guts to take on McCain. The fact that McCain is ignoring her is signaling to voters that she is done for; she needs to get in his face immediately to reclaim the national debate.

I'm reading these comments and thinking THANK GOD for superdelegates -- elected officials and party activists who will make a decision based on their insight into the process. Not the silly populace who rely on the latest craze or spin to hit the mainstream. This is the same ignorant and short-sighted electorate that voted George Bush into office not once but twice! Talk about change...some things actually never do. Most people are too lazy to truly research and critically analyze their candidates based on accomplishment, political savvy and dare I say EXPERIENCE. Experience and length of public service within the democratic party is truly meaningful in the post George Dubyah years. Don't be fooled by media swooning and idealistic oratory. Just wait until the Republicans get their hands on Obama. It'll be 4 more yrs of Republican lunacy.

Hillary is the best hope we have to actually DO something -- finally for a change. If people want true change, they ought to look in the mirror. Dare to think differently at how to determine what defines effective presidential leadership.

re: "While campaigning, he has missed 3/4 of his voting while Hillary has kept going back to make her votes, only missing 1/4 of her voting,"

and the stupid factless opinion: "This is an out-an-out lie. No need to read the rest of your propaganda. Speak truthfully and you will be more persuasive. As it is you only reaffirm the deceitful character of the Clinton team."

Bajagirl, I think you've found the big red herring (or narrative) in this debate: the idea of experience vs. change

Since you are claiming that Obama is not experienced and that Clinton is, let's examine that. Where are her 35 years of experience? She was a wife of a Gov. and later President. That, Ma'am, is not experience for leadership. It MAY be political experience (i.e. how to win elections) but, frankly, the Clinton years were not that good for the dem party in Congress either. Remember that contract with America thing?

She has had a couple of years more in the Senate than Obama, and she deserves credit for that- but such credit is ruined with her ridiculous claims of '35 years of experience'. I don't want her running on that anymore than I want the wife of a surgeon operating on me because she always listens to what her husband talks about at the table.

There are much, MUCH more experienced women in Washington (and out of Washington) who haven't had to get married to 'get experience'. You may call that sexist- I call it the opposite (and believe we should judge people based on their accomplishments).

The other point that needs to be made is that experience is a misnomer if it doesn't lead to good decisions. The Iraq decision was one that convinced me that I cannot vote for Clinton if I have a reasonable choice. She trusted Bush- she cannot be trusted by me.

More people like Obama than they like Clinton. It's not mass hysteria or mania. People vote for the one they like. It's not hard to understand. Plus, Obama is a terrific speaker. Duhh!!

Ironic note: I've supported Obama since I watched his speech at the Democratic convention before kerry's nomination. It's kind of funny that a couple of years ago David Brooks encouraged Obama to run...and now he joins the group of folks that like to trash him!

I was one of those who knew Iraq was a flimsy sale job...and if I can see this from my rural Illinois vantage point, the morons in Washington that let Bush go in (i.e., Clinton) deserve to lose their job...not just their shot at the presidency.

Their policies are relatively similar. What, then, could be the difference? One of them seems to move people to act (vote, donate, defy the pundits) and one of them stirs a level of discord unparalleled in recent American history. Hmmm?

I'll tell you what disappoints and disgusts me as much as and often more than the trio from yester-year, it's the developmentally arrested Hillary haters full of sexism and misogyny with absolutely no sense of her talents, strengths, history of service, accomplishments and as the NYT stated, "powerful intellect."

The fact that you have to resort to such pre-teen ugliness shows that you have no concept of what your mothers, sisters, wives, neices, girlfriends, grandmothers have had to experience or WILL experience in terms of sexism and sexual violence (physical and psychological) in this world. YOU are part of the problem, not the solution. Grow up and get a clue you little shriveled up pee pee boys -- diminishing a woman of achievement in order to feel superior -- jeez, just like the racists that diminish Obama in terms of race -- it has no place in a civilized democracy. Grow up cowardly brainless needle-d*cks. Or go back to the republican party where you'll be welcomed with open arms.

freedom41 says "yeah, you should help readers debunk the garbage and explain why certain arguments are good or not. For example, the big states theory -does anyone really think the dem nominee will lose CA, NY, MA, or NJ? On the other hand, Obama won some big states that are important to win and may be contested - WI, VA, CO, IA, and was close with NM."

OTOH, why would a win in a democratic primary in Colorado result in a win in the general election? If Obama got the majority of democrats in the primary in Iowa, why would that mean he would get the majority of all the voters in the general election?

Wake up people!
Are you really going to let somebody run your country who you've basically just met, who just recently came into your government, who gives you no detailed answers on how he is going to be able to accomplish all of his promises to you.....are you really going to choose such an inexperienced person whom you do not even know to be the leader of your country???
Think first. Do research please. Obama does not have a repoire with ANY of the world's leaders while both the Clintons have good repoires with many world leaders and many of them will be open to Hillary, already knowing they can trust her.
How long will it take for all of the world leaders to build a relationship with Obama?

Too long for me.
Our country's reputation is mudd in the eyes of the rest of the world, they don't like or trust Americans anymore. The reports friends bring back from many other countries is disappointing and scary. Many world leaders already know Hillary as an old friend they feel comfortable with, like and trust. This is very important people. Think people!
What really bothers me most about Obama is that since he didn't have the ability to come up with a plan for America, he hijacked John Edwards and Hillary's plans, tweaking them a bit to sound better to the masses, all the whilst not having a clue as to how difficult it will be to deliver on all of his speeches. How could he know? He just got to Washington. Don't think that the establishment is going to all step aside and let the new guy take over and do as he pleases. If our government was that easy to conform and change, we'd be a lot further ahead and our government would have accomplished much more by now. The arrogance for him to think that he will be able to change all of those Republicans minds with his charm.
OBAMA IS SIMPLY JUST IN IT TO WIN IT PEOPLE. THINK ABOUT IT. What rookie goes into the Senate and runs for President within the first couple of years? What a quick promotion he wants! And people buy into it. While campaigning, he has missed 3/4 of his voting while Hillary has kept going back to make her votes, only missing 1/4 of her voting, showing that she not only cares about what's happening in Washington but will tirelessly work to be counted.
Obama cares more about winning, getting elected, having the title POTUS. It reminds me of the Robin Williams movie where Robin gets elected POTUS because of his LIKEABILITY but once he's in the White House, he resigns because he realizes that all he was good for was getting elected and doesn't really know the first thing about how to run the country. It's life imitating art!
With Hillary Clinton, I know exactly what I am getting and I like what I feel she can deliver.

Obama tickles your ears with pretty words and you fall for it......hook, line and sinker.

...dont' think one of you posted that it would be highly unlikely the Clinton camp would reveal all, maybe just what they want us to see; and even though people seem to think they know it all, it's unlikely we could possibly predict all the intangibles...very curious this addiction to prediction and need to know..where's the mystery and excitment of just watching it unfold?

I feel like Rip Van Winkle. When I went to sleep last summer, this country was pretty racially polarized. White men used the Duke case as a proxy for a complaint about blacks and reverse discrimination, Don Imus was suspended (only briefly mind you) for calling some black women "nappy headed hoes" and both races might as well have been speaking completely different languages as we discussed the Jena Six.

Now, in just a few short months, are we to believe that these tensions of more than 100 years have vanished. It turns out, we were all waiting for a black man to give an inspirational speech. Who knew?

Either we can believe that explanation or we can believe that the world and human nature has not changed that much in a few months. But if race still mattered, how could Obama be ahead in the nomination? The answer is politics.

How do you avoid a black or woman president if a major political party is sure to nominate one of them? Do you want to leave it up to a coin flip in November? Of course not. You use loopholes in the other party's nomination process to cross party lines and vote for the weakest candidate. After the strongest candidate is eliminated, you take your improved chances in the fall.

It's really pretty easy to see if you're not blinded by the hope. Have you noticed the silence? Kind of like it is before a storm. Where are all of the bigots who loaded the blogs just weeks ago? Why is there practically no republican criticism of the new leadng candidate after weeks of vicious opposition to his opponent? Why is there such an increase in non-Democratic and new voters in the Democratic primaries. What brought on the head scratching decision by a majority of white men that, after 200 years, it now will be cool to have an inexperienced black man as president.

Time will only tell if these are the rantings of a conspiracy theorist. Maybe "body snatcher" pods were placed in all of our beds since last summer. Maybe we were all replaced by people who don't consider race important anymore. But you have to admit, the change was awfully sudden.

Winning big states is important, but winning Texas? Does anyone really believe that Hillary Clinton is going to win Texas if she's nominated? So what makes the big state an important state in the nomination contest? Likewise with Obama and Virginia. Does winning there mean anything other than that black voters really turn out for black candidates? Oh, gosh, sorry. I didn't mean say that Barack is black. That's not allowed -- until September.

Wake up people!
Are you really going to let somebody run your country who you've basically just met, who just recently came into your government, who gives you no detailed answers on how he is going to be able to accomplish all of his promises to you.....are you really going to choose such an inexperienced person whom you do not even know to be the leader of your country???
Think first. Do research please. Obama does not have a repoire with ANY of the world's leaders while both the Clintons have good repoires with many world leaders and many of them will be open to Hillary, already knowing they can trust her.
How long will it take for all of the world leaders to build a relationship with Obama?

Too long for me.
Our country's reputation is mudd in the eyes of the rest of the world, they don't like or trust Americans anymore. The reports friends bring back from many other countries is disappointing and scary. Many world leaders already know Hillary as an old friend they feel comfortable with, like and trust. This is very important people. Think people!
What really bothers me most about Obama is that since he didn't have the ability to come up with a plan for America, he hijacked John Edwards and Hillary's plans, tweaking them a bit to sound better to the masses, all the whilst not having a clue as to how difficult it will be to deliver on all of his speeches. How could he know? He just got to Washington. Don't think that the establishment is going to all step aside and let the new guy take over and do as he pleases. If our government was that easy to conform and change, we'd be a lot further ahead and our government would have accomplished much more by now. The arrogance for him to think that he will be able to change all of those Republicans minds with his charm.
OBAMA IS SIMPLY JUST IN IT TO WIN IT PEOPLE. THINK ABOUT IT. What rookie goes into the Senate and runs for President within the first couple of years? What a quick promotion he wants! And people buy into it. While campaigning, he has missed 3/4 of his voting while Hillary has kept going back to make her votes, only missing 1/4 of her voting, showing that she not only cares about what's happening in Washington but will tirelessly work to be counted.
Obama cares more about winning, getting elected, having the title POTUS. It reminds me of the Robin Williams movie where Robin gets elected POTUS because if his LIKEABILITY but once he's in the White House, he resigns because he realizes that all he was good for was getting elected and doesn't really know the first thing about how to run the country. It's life imitating art!
With Hillary Clinton, I know exactly what I am getting and I like what I feel she can deliver.

He tickles your ears with pretty words and you fall for it......hook, line and sinker.

It will totally work. And to help it, my uncle Frank the wizard will magically appear, wave a wand, say hocus pocus, and Clinton will be the nominee. Or maybe the Clinton's will just poach delegates. Who knows?

I believe the media has put Obama where he is now, HAVE DONE HALF THE CAMPAING FOR HIM.
We do not know actually how is Obama, at least I do not
The only thing that I know of his capacity to hipnotize masses
IS HE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR THE PARTY'''????, AND TO BE PRESIDENT IN CASE HE SHOULD WIN IN NOV.??'
I would abstain or vote republican in case he is the nominee because AS A DEMOCRAT I do not identify myself with that way of making politcs , Â¡POLITICS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE, OF FAITH AND BELIEVEING, IS ACT OF TRUST AND REASON

See, that's the problem with People of Character, Principle, and Integrity... They cant just change their positions or "who they are" all the time.

That's a Big advantage for Hillary Rove Clinton... She's doesn't have that whole "Soul" thing to stand in her way.

I was thinking maybe they could Just get Bill to go around in Drag and do all the talking for a couple of weeks. You know, till the race evens out, then give the little lady her microphone back and let her steer for a while.

Like Campaign training wheels.

It's getting interesting. I heard she's been working on a new hand gesture, too! It's So Exciting!

Second, why the hell are you and most of the rest of the media letting the Clinton campaign control the news, set the agenda, frame the story, etc.?

This story reads like you ripped it hot off the email from Howard Wolfson-sheeps-clothing.

As a reporter and editor who spent a good 25 years in the trenches, I always tried to resist the pressure to publish a story before my brain had a chance to sift through it. Even your spellchecking is rushed: "landmind"?

While the demands of blogging put an even greater pressure to publish on the media, that's no excuse for letting a candidate hog the headlines. I personally don't care if Hillary's speech was interrupted by the networks switching to Obama. His ninth straight landslide was the news of the moment. She never even acknowledged it.

This isn't the first or last time that the Clintons will forward a fax, email or phone call outlining their "Comeback Kid Part II: Hillary's Resurrection" strategy. And it certainly won't be the last time that Clinton weighs in with some supposedly "important" headline-grabber just when Obama is about to get some coverage. But I hope this is the last time you will let her campaign dangle something sparkly in front of you to distract you from what should be your mission: dispatching what your associate Bob Woodward called the "best obtainable version of the truth."

Spread the word to your brothers and sisters at the Post: The public is not served just because Wolfson or Ickes plays you with a tantalizing scoop. They aren't Deep Throat ("Gotta go, I've already said too much." CLICK.), and you aren't Jimmy Olsen.

Good God, man! You're a journalist! Don't let the Clinton campaign bully you with bluster and baffle you with b---s---.

Chris thanks for the great info. Clinton's plan won't work... I think because the more people see of her, the less they like. If she attacks Obama, it just reminds people that in the unlikely chance she wins the Presidency... here we go again with 4 years of gridlock. She is trying to swim against a tide, Americans are DESPERATE for change, and a fresh start. No matter how many times she tries to repackage herself, it's still obvious she is last years model.

Good strategy points. I'd add one more:
Emphasize the real mandate of the superdelegates. I think this is an important fact to consider. Both the blogosphere and the Obama camp and his groupies (I mean, supporters) are going to push hard for the superdelegates to vote in line with the pledged delegates and/or the popular vote, presuming Obama leads in those two vote counts. The Clinton camp needs to make it abundantly clear that the rules governing superdelegates unambigiously make them free agents. By no interpretation of any party rules are they bound to cast their vote based on any other vote count. They might also point out that if superdelegates are beholden to uphold the choice of the pledged or rank and file voters, then by that standard, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Deval Patrick must change their vote from Obama to Clinton, since Clinton won MA.

The Clinton campaign swore that they would not be Swiftboated. The superdelegate issue is one place where that is very likely to happen if they don't set the record straight, now and often.

Well there sure are a lot of people on this list who have drunk the Obama Kool-Aid. Here are some different things to consider: Apparently the MSM has convinced you all that pointing up differences between the candidates is "going negative". It's not. It's perfectly reasonable and there's nothing bad about it. Obama has 4 pollsters, Hillary has 1, so which one is "poll driven"? Not that the MSM will ever let you know that. There have been no "dirty politics" or sleazy attacks.

In Iowa, they dragged in people off the street (including campaign workers) and invited them to caucus without caring if they were registered Iowa voters. This will probably become "news" 4 months from now.

It was not "racist" for Bill to make a reasonable historical statement about Jesse Jackson having won the primary, nor was it "racist" for Hillary to make a reasonable historical statement about President Johnson passing civil rights legislation, nor was it "racist" for Mr. Bendixen in TX to make a reasonable historical statement about Latino voters and African American candidates. But the MSM sure wants you to think all this. (Thank you, WPost!) Now, that IS sleazy.

Obama has won a number of states that NO Democrat will take in Nov. Our experience in VA is that many MANY of our Republic friends voted in the Dem. primary for Obama because they view him as easier to defeat. Think they're gonna vote for him in the election? Think again. Why will no one talk about this? What are the chances this is what happened last night in WI? Now, THAT is sleazy!

Obama's basic message is: every politician who has been in the fight for issues important to America over the last 20 years should be DISQUALIFIED from current politics because of that experience in the fight, and, Obama is actually a BETTER candidate for us because he was not in those fights all those years. Can you acknowledge this with a straight face? C'mon! I actually have LESS experience than Obama, since I've never been in the Senate (even for 2 years) so with that reasoning I should be a better candidate - right?

I am profoundly saddened and scared at the thought of this completely unqualified person becoming President. Talk is cheap, mistakes are expensive. As the despicable Ralph Nader used to say, "there's not a dime's worth of difference between these two" on the issues. If that's so, how is it possible that voters would prefer the one with NO experience over the one with years and years of experience? We'll lose, we'll end up with President McCain, and we'll DESERVE all the dreadful things that will follow.

The McCain v Hillary and McCain v Obama comparisons are silly. Nobody really knows Obama. He's gotten the biggest free rise in history. For some reason there's a liberal fear of calling him out. For some reason a black man is off limits but a woman isn't. A case where sexism is stronger than racism. When the electorate does find out about his, and unfortunately it will be through the filter of the Republican hate machine. God help us. It might mean another four years of Bush-isms and the further destruction of our constitution.

The "big states" strategy is a loser right out of the gate. It makes two mistakes:

1) Bush won without most of the "big states" in 2004. Ranty Rhodes went on her show complaining about the states where Bush won, "No one lives there!" No one, that is, except the majority of those who voted.

2) The idea that just because Obama lost NY and CA in the primaries means he'll lose them in the election is pure, finger-lickin' BS. New York is not about to commit harikiri and vote for McCain and neither will California. And New Jersey and Massachusetts? Please! Florida and Michigan will be tossups, but if they can be given some sort of a voice at the convention they may go Obama's way.

Most importantly, Ickey forgets one basic fact. Republicans will swamp the polls in droves to keep Clinton from becoming president. She will lose against McCain, and lose big. Every poll shows Obama's chances are better against him.

This staunch Clinton supporter is sorry to say that the above "strategy" will not work. The only thing that can stop Obama now is Obama; a slip of the tongue in a debate, or some new dirt from his past emerging.

I don't buy at all the arguments that Clinton was too flawed a candidate to succeed. What has devastated her campaign was poor tactics. Her campaign strategy never took into account the possibility of a strong contender. Even after Iowa, Clinton always tried to make herself look inevitable. Only now is she trying to slip into true battle mode. It's too late.

And then ofcourse there was Super Tuesday. Many media sources have already said it, but I'll say it again just because I can barely beleive it; Clinton had no strategic planning in place for after Super Tuesday! That was epic presidential campaign hubris! The kind of unbelievable incompetance that makes me want to call up Pat Solis-Doyle and ask her for my donations back!

I sincerely hope Clinton tries again in four years. She will have my vote then too. Yes, I did say four years. I like Obama as well, and I will be voting for him in November. But mark my words. McCain is going to eat him alive.

She's playing Chess with the States as places to move her pawns. Thinking of them as winner take all. Might work if states didn't all get media - a hundred years ago this could work. And a better strategy in the Republicant side, where they fix the results to be winner take all.

But he's playing poker.

And winning.

You can just feel it from a mile away ...

Now, McCain, he's playing cribbage, but someone forgot to tell him it's not a horse race, and we're playing a different card game ...

Why is it that when I read something ignorant and absurd, your name is always at the bottom of the comment? ALWAYS??!!

I'm starting to wonder if you have the new revised general election GOP playbook or if you're still using their primary playbook, because you are continually on the cutting edge of stupidity when it comes to anti-Obama rhetoric and there's just no way you could come up with so much stupidity and ignorance on the spot, day by day.

The last poll I said had something like 80% of Clinton supporters willing to vote for Obama. The other 20% will come around once they let go of the pipe dream that is a Clinton nomination.

The only people that would logically migrate from Clinton straight to McCain are racist old white people. Because if you care about any of Clinton's policies, Obama is the surest way of garnering the support from the American people to pass them, if the people demand it. McCain isn't going to pass anything except for deficit tax cuts and military budget increases.

YES - HILLARY WILL. Hillary Clinton will be president because we will be meeting more voters, calling more volunteers, working harder and donating more to see that she does. She is the most qualified and best prepared and she doesn't have to go outside the party and count on republicans for her support.
Senator Obama has had a free ride from the press. Even his own campaign surrogates have to take a day to "look up" his accomplishments. I remember asking the same of one of his supporters who was screaming at me about what was wrong about Hillary. He couldn't name anything he liked about Obama.
So YES -- no matter what is reported to be her blueprint -- no matter how angry and offensive his bloggers and supporters are -- No matter how you try to silence us -- She Will be president.
GO HILLARY

Given all of the Obama! hype, has anyone noticed how calm the Republicans seem to be? Could it be that they know that their "hands-off" policy toward Obama throughout this entire primary season is bearing fruit? That, in fact, the unelectable Obama is going to be the nominee. That when he is forced to admit his pro gun control, pro abortion, pro affirmative action and other hard left policies, he will be lucky to carry Illinois, California, and New York. And what makes me laugh are those who say that because he drew some white male votes in places like Alabama and Idaho in the primaries makes it more likely that he will carry such states in the general. Absurd. The Republican base will turn out in droves to beat this guy. Think about it. Even though the Democratic base turned out every available voter in 2004, Bush still won by 3 million votes. Bottom line, Obama has been used to defeat the one enemy who is still, in fact, truly hated and feared by the Republicans - the Clintons. And the Democratic base has been truly suckered to an unprecedented degree - and they will absolutely pay for it in November. Betrayal carries its own special price.

The Democratic "Leadership" ?? Right!
That's the same group that denied Florida a real primary, and might try and change the rules in midstream to make it count because their guy (sorry, gal) won a primary that didn't count AT THE TIME.
Ya gotta love those brilliant people who live in their self aggrandizing bubble. I only wish they'd change to Republicans and save the Democratic party.
Hillary has half the country who just WON'T vote for her. Forget the reasons -- PEW research shows her getting 46% CONSISTENTLY for the last 18 months. Hello -- Experts -- Wake up -- do you want four more years of Bush ?? Or is getting your person in there really that important.
The "leadership" of the Democratic party is starting to look really, really bad -- it feels like the 2000 election -- and if they get the chance -- they'll probably give her the nomination -- and so many of us will just simply not vote.
Message to the "leadership" -- get bent -- you ARE THE PROBLEM.

It is almost impossible for the Clintons to throw in the towel. Call me cynical, I believe they have been plotting Hillary's campaign ever since 1992. She could not see Bill went down because of the scandals rocked his presidency. She came up and fought the scandals for him, she admitted that she was battle scared. If Bill went down then, there would be no Hillary '08. I hope that she's a great spouse for Bill. She could never divorce Bill because of his infidelities. Divorce means no Hillary '08. Bottom line, the Clintons are self serving at best.

Obama is clearly winning this nomination fight. Yet Clinton claims that Obama is unelectable in the general election.

Fine, then. If an Obama nomination really means President McCain, then Hillary should have a great shot at the White House in 2012. Those of us who dared back Obama will be properly chastised and contrite, and ready to back the "experienced" and "vetted" candidate.

But efforts to change the rules she agreed to, or to steal the nomination with apparatchik superdelegates who owe their jobs to Bill, or more smears and negativity, will scupper Hillary's future prospects.

The biggest problem I have with Hillary's campaign is her constant harping on "Who will be ready on day one?" Om, is it the candidate who "found her voice" in New Hampshire, over a year after the beginning of the primary campaign? The person who is trying to piece her campaign back together at this point by winning "the big states" and the seating unrecognized FL and MI delegates? NO, I think it's the candidate who has run a well-structured, solid and heartfelt campaign since day one. Barack Obama. Cheers from a smiling Iowan (and former Washingtonian) for Obama!

Beating the Clintons at their own game, under the rules established by the Clintons
so that her nomination would be inevitable, shows me his mettle, his leadership, his fortitude, his ability for decision making, his political courage, and his grace under fire. Experience? This campaign created the president Obama is going to be.

All the creativity and insight of a Dawn dish soap commercial. So, they really think the emergence of the Bob Dole retread will somehow awaken the populace and convince it that only Hillary can save us from from ourselves. Do those guys get paid for this stuff?

1. Insider politics Vs. the fired up electorate... Wanna destroy the Democratic party forever? Just piss off the Obama supporters who have come into the sun for the first time, or for the first time in decades. Now she wants to play politics? We don't CARE about her poltical machinations...

WE DEMAND THE SUPER-DELEGATES FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE VOTERS! Obama will be in the lead of the delegate count and so the super delegates better support him or the party will be doomed.

2. Two weeks is a long time FOR OBAMA TO BUILD A HEAD OF STEAM! Clinton simply cannot compete any longer in the electorate - she can only compete in smoke filled back rooms.

3. DEbates matter - And Obama has held his own against clinton in each of them. She doesn't have the speaking skills, quick mind, or connction with the electorate to pull off a smashing debate win over Obama.

4. More scrutiny.. GREAT! Now we can talk about Obama's published positions that guys never discuss, and thus people don't know he has. More spotlight on Obama? THANK YOU!

5. National defense? Bring on the question of IRAQ.

6. Big States matter? Only if you win them decisively and the next three are looking like a tie at best for hillary.

Happy birthday dude!
Last but not least, that big state strategy speaks volumes to me about Hillary. She is really an elitist, and focusing on the big states is a mirror image of that stance. She and Bill have mighty high opinions of themselves; they may be meritocratic in their approach, but they are aristocratic in their attitude. They are both giving off an unpleasant odor of entitlement, particularly unpleasant in the wake of Geaorge W. So, it's only the big states that matter, the power states, right, because they're all about the power!!! Hillary doesn't have a clue. And she's a big, fat phony in her appeals to the common people, because all she really cares about is her own little circle of Harvard/Yale-educated merito-artistocrats.

I don't see the blueprint working. Current polls call Texas a dead heat. Clinton, however, needs more than mere wins in Texas and Ohio - she needs big wins to catch up in the delegate count.

Clinton apparently is counting on super-delegates to pull her through. But if they go to the convention with Obama in the lead on the caucus/primary delegate count and super-delegates throw it Clinton's way, the Democrats will lose the election in November. Too many people still smolder over Florida in 2000 to forgive party bosses for stealing the nomination. For that matter, McCain would have a field day with it, as yet another example of Clinton-style politics, as he would if the nomination is won by the the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan.

If Clinton is to have the nomination, she'll have to have it going into the convention or without the taint of old-style politics. That, I don't think she can manage.

The Wisconsin exist poles clearly demonstrate that the negative attacks did not work. So, why beat the horse to death.

Truth is that the Penn, Wolfson, Ickes and Clinton have nothing new to say.

Truth is that Mrs. Clinton represents the past (McCain does even more so)

Truth is that Mrs. Clinton has to win every upcoming primary by at least 55% of the vote to be viable. And, if Mr. Obama wins any of these primary, the threshold rise to mid 60s%. Its some sort of dreamin' to think she can do it.

Then, again, she might just steal more of Mr. Obama's lines and say they are hers. Hillary and Bill has mastered this strategy.

But, folks now see it for the lie it is. Just like these see the attack ads for the lies they are.

Worth mentioning - the Tuesday debate will be opposite American Idol. Guess which will command the most voters. They should have done it on Monday, nothing good to watch then. I love politics, but won't miss American Idol. Some advice - send Bill to wherever VP Cheney goes - to an undisclosed location, until after the primary.

Sounds like wishful thinking. Time has always favored Obama, not Clinton, in this race. She is the known commodity; he is the new figure who improves in the polls when people get to know him. He's also the one who beats McCain in the polls.

Obama has a good chance of winning both Ohio and Texas (and will clean up in RI and VT). So much for the big state argument. In fact, so much then for the Hillary candidacy.

The NY Times already did a good analysis showing that the nomination has to be decided by superdelegates at this point. Before yesterday, Obama would have needed to win 81% of the remaining pledged delegates, or Clinton 91% of them, for someone to secure the nomination without it. Why would superdelegates throw the nomination to Clinton when Obama has the momentum, the better fundraising, the greater popular vote total, and the stronger poll numbers against McCain? Intrade has Obama now trading at a 79% chance of winning the nomination, and 55% at the general.

This is the best the vaunted Clinton experience can produce?
It boils down to waiting for Obama to make a mistake and letting the media and McCain raise doubts about him. That, plus persuading superdelegates that Clinton can win a broader electorate in November than she is able to win now. (Doesn't make much sense, does it?)

The Clinton folks have thrown everything they can think of at Obama, hoping something would catch on: He's too young, he is inexperienced, he's a flip-flopper, he's a plaigirist, he lacks substance, he's the new Jesse Jackson, he's got more money, he hasn't been vetted or held to tough scrutiny, he can only win caucuses and small states, he's not tough enough to handle Republican attacks, and so on. In trying to rattle him, they've only underscored his point about the pettiness of Clinton-era politics. He answers the charges and moves on. Now the wags in the media and some Clinton backers are likening Obama's supporters to a cult, mindlessly following their leader. Please - Keep insulting millions of voters. Keep insisting that the Clintons would be winning if the game were played by different rules. Keep failing to acknowledge a long string of defeats.

In her conduct of the campaign, you see the kind of president Hillary Clinton would be. She would blame other people when things don't go her way, insist the game is rigged against her, and try to intimidate or mock people who are in her way. Her campaign has shown little ability to adapt to a quickly changing environment. The candidate has shown little ability to appeal to or communicate with people outside her core constituency. She has squandered her built-in advantages in the party. She has insisted that the only thing that matters is who has the most detailed policy proposals but she has refused to give a clear explanation of her decision making on the most important policy issue of our time--war in Iraq.

These are the characteristics Clinton would bring to the presidency on Day One. Her advisers are in outer space if they don't recognize these flaws. The voters do.

What the comments make clear are:
1. Clinton's Team dug their heels in on the candidate's electability and so many strategic issues without considering that there might be conditions to cause a change in direction -- very early on.

2. Connecting to point 1, her campaign has consisted of ONLY truly skilled, long term political strategists from the past and people she personally valued. The tendency to dig heels in as a team - full of "group think" happened so fast, it is likely that all fresh ideas were tossed or evaporated.

3. On financing, she really stuck with excluding those "night shift workers" she is now claiming to relate to and who under no circumstance can cough up for minimum $250 fundraisers. Obama beat her on that fair and square - his campaign motivated people to respond and to believe that in fact he counts them.

4. Bill has been a liabilty from the get go, some of it unfair, but the Team counted on his approval by polls to steer him into the thick of things w/o considering the mixed messages of his involvement at all beyond fundraising.

5. Presenting her First Lady years in AR and DC as somehow legislatively meaningful to her experience was really dumb advice.

6. Last, since before Chelsea was born, the Clintons have lived on public funds. What a stretch for her to EVER claim to really, really understand daycare issues, struggling to pay bills as many of us do now, fill the gas tank. With her deserved, but high, lawyering salary in ARkansas and having assistance as First Lady, believe me,she does not understand struggle.

Many have been torn on this but clearly there is one candidate, at least as far as I can see now, who indeed has a better sense of what "real" and everyday people do struggle with.

Although I do not in any way doubt Obama's ability to succeed in the upcoming remaining primaries, I'd like to take a moment to remind everybody of an elementary civics/government lesson. Just because the Democrats and Republicans nominate somebody doesn't mean that is our only option for the Presidency. Someone such as Barack Obama who has already led such a massive grass roots movement still has the ability to successfully campaign and succeed regardless of party affiliation, should the superdelegates not heed the calls of their constituents, and the race become sabotaged by the sickeningly corrupt political institution at hand. Our forefathers made these rules for just such situations, and it's about time people started using the tools that have been given them to make their voices heard.

Oh and seriously though Chris, I hope your point was to make the Clinton camp look even more pathetic and struggling, because that's all I can gleam from this article, a sense of hopeless defeat masked by the struggle to "convince" aka "lie" to the American public that HC can save our country and world. Not in a million years.

There are only two ways for Sen. Clinton to win this nomination. One is for Sen. Obama to make a major mistake in the two upcoming debates. High risk, but desperate times... I doubt this will happen. All he has to do is to stay on message, don't retaliate or otherwise take the bait, and look presidential. The other way is for some bombshell in Obama's background that shows him as a fraud. Not likely to happen, I think they would have brought that out by now. Besides, the Clinton's have a long and documented track record of challenges, take your pick. In my opinion, it is game, set, and match.

the brother has potential
he ought to go far
he always knows exactly who his best friends are
The greatest show since American Idol
Oprah gave her blessing
Ted Kennedy did too
Caroline saw her dad
& John Kerry is still mad

Change is coming, change is coming!

Now, don't ask for specifics
the Obamistas don't care
they simply want hope and lots of change
and how rude of you to ask
about who is going to pay
that is old thinking of the likes of
Hillary and John McCain

Change is coming, change is coming

And as to Osama and all things Alkaida
Funny you should ask
we'll simply have Oprah help us understand
Maybe he was molested, ah that would surely explain it
Poor thing, lets all hold hands!

Wow ... "where's the beef?" So the most experienced politician, the person "ready on day one," the best candidate, the most consummate manager and policy wonk comes up with these lame "blueprint" points to save her candidacy? Turn off the lights on your way out Mr. Penn ... it will be a long time before another candidate is foolish enough to place their fortunes in your hands. This delusional blather should be printed in the daily edition of the Post -- at least it could then be used to line bird cages! Yes We Can!

1. The electorate increasingly rejects her.
2. We hate party insider politics and DEMAND the super delegates vote with the public. Any backroom dealing will destroy the party forever... you think all of us that came out into the suin for the first time - or the first time in decades - will stand for superdelegates installing clinton when we rejected her? Forget it.
3. 2 weeks? Great! more time for Obama to build steam.
4. Debates matter? Great! Obama has held his own in the debates.
5. National security? AWESOME! See, Hillary is bankrupt here and Obama's position is the polar opposite of the failed policy.. go it alone, lie and obfuscate, offend our allies.. The public is ready to dismiss these attacks as bad policy bringing more bad policy.
6. Bid states matter more? Only if you can win them. Texas will be a push as will Ohio and Pennsylvania - at best a push for clinton.

Hillary's currency is now worthless and the back room machinations are pissing EVERYONE off.

These points seem more like wishful thinking that Obama will screw up than an actual plan to change the dynamics of this campaign. Hillary has been saying for weeks that Obama is just a lot of rhetoric, but no one seems to be buying it. Obama's speech in Houston last night seemed to meld hope with policy. Obama's share of Hillary's base of support continues to increase with each contest.

I just don't see Hillary as having the dynamic personality to motivate voters. Bill had (has?) it. Obama has it. She does not.

So the essence of the strategy is to play for a tie with the pledged delegates, and hope to manipulate enough super delegates to seat the bogus Florida and Michigan delegates to deliver the nomination to Clinton.
These are people without principle or shame.

ready from day1: that is why she had to fire her campaign manager and had a plan only for a few weeks . her own chosen mission accomplished day of feb5 came and went and along with it the nomination. I think that another presidential type got into some trouble for poor planning of a campaign, a war campaign . let's see, Geo. Bush?
Hillary, all you deserve is the old ending of monday night football: turn out the lights, the party's over. but perhaps Hillary really wants to end the party by this crazy continuation of her campaign.
Being a Senator from New York can't be all that bad. go home be the Senator that you want to be, never beholden to anyone, your people will elect you forever.

--As for the 2,025 delegates: As Obama starts to gain in superdelegates, I think the new magic number becomes 1,627 - the number needed to clinch the pledged delegate count. Using that metric, Clinton would pretty much need to average 59-41 wins through PR, margins she's only seen in the "small, red states" of AR and OK.

--As for the long time: Clinton actually did best in NH, NV and Super Tuesday, races that came quickly on the heels of preceding races.

--Debates: I'd say only the first dozen or so matter...

--Being the frontrunner: This is the most potent point, but frontrunner = more superdelegates, too, adding to the woes from point #1.

--McCain & Nat'l security: Hillary and Obama are at an equal disadvantage vs. McCain on this one, and Obama has the bonus vs. both of being against the Iraq War.

--Big states: This is dumbest thing I've ever heard. Every state matters, and the ones that matter most are the swing/"purple" states, regardless of size.

So, I don't think much of their blueprint. I'm also wondering if the interview got cut off before they mentioned what kind of role their new 527's are going to have...

This is a total delusion. HRC is finished. These pr consultants ripped her off for what? a couple million and gave her the wrong plan (nothing after Super Tuesday). Now they're trying to save their skins even though the game is over. The Obama wave will sweep Ohio and Texas and HRC will lose by over 10 points. She needs to get the message before anymore destructive stuff.

What a joke. You should not be permitted to write for the Post ever again. You essentially copy/paste the details of clinton campaign's propaganda machine. how this passes for true journalism is beyond me. to add extreme insult to injury, this is the leading article on washingtonpost.com?

"No" to all of them. She should hide her husband and the daughter. They remind everyone of the "ick" factor of the Clinton years. If I was her advisor, I would suggest the following:
1) Explain how she would have done things differently regarding NAFTA, No Child Left Behind, and her votes on Iraq and Iran. What were lessons learned?
2) Don't go negative (again, this reminds people of the ethics problems and the "attack dog" mentality of the Clinton years). Also, when she does the multiple personality thing, where one day she's shrill, the next minute she's yucking it up, and then she's cold and icy, it makes you wonder how anybody could work with her, let alone want to be lead by her. This brings up another issue. She seems to embody the manager, and not the leader. Where is the oratory?
3) Don't wave that pamphlet around on stump speeches. It makes it look like you don't even know what is in the pamphlet, let alone that you can speak concisely and eloquently about your plans.
4) Every time the super delegates or Florida/Michigan are mentioned, people get chills envisioning a "stolen" election. Play by the rules agreed to and get over it. Tell the public this and they will forgive what appears to be an attempt to corrupt the process.
5) Fire your campaign managers. They have not served you well. And, this then brings into question, judgment of character. If you surround yourself with low-lives (an ankle-biter, a creepy pollster, and Mickey Mouse) people start wondering why couldn't you find your own people who weren't left-overs from your husband's white house years.

I've been a post reader for years, and will continue to be. However, of late it seems the post is obsessed with finding ways for Hillary to come back. I don't recall multiple articles by the Fix and Dan Balz trying to figure out strategies for Obama to up-end The Inevitable.

Actually, I think Mark Penn is making a deal with George Bush to have that missile overshoot the space satellite and target Obama's headquarters, Unfortunately, Bush has already set the coordinates for Pelosi's office in SanFrancisco.

I don't think the blueprint has a chance, but I have a specific question about this "big state" issue. Why is New Jersey on that list? Georgia has a larger population. Of the 4 states with top 10 populations that have voted so far in legitimate elections, Clinton has won 2 (CA, NY) and Obama has won 2 (IL and GA).Obama should also be strong in North Carolina. If the final tally in "big" states is Clinton 5 - Obama 3 (with two throw aways), is that really a compelling reason for superdelegates to overturn the will of the rest of the country?

1. Neither candidate will emerge from the primary fight with the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

This puts more pressure on the popular vote, which does and will continue to be Obama territory.

2. Two Weeks is a Long Time in Political Terms.

The longer Obama has between primaries, the better he does. The more people get to know him, the more they like him. This is a consistent trend.

3. Debates Matter.

Clinton's demand for more debates (we're at 18 and counting) just makes her look broke and desperate. She knows that's her last strong suit and the voters are realizing this more every time she brings it up.

4. Obama is the frontrunner = more scrutiny.

But it also means people will start paying less attention to her and more attention to the fact that he's leading in every imaginable way right now.

5. Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) emergence means national security will be the key issue of 2008.

Simple. The public hates the war in Iraq, Obama voted against it, Clinton and McCain voted for it. This will always be his national security trump card. End of story.

6. Big States Matter More.

Big states matter more, but the popular vote trumps the state size. Obama got enough votes from the big states to fully assure he will win all of the states in November that Clinton won in the primary season. The only contested states are Ohio and Pennsylvania, but Obama hasn't campaigned in either state yet and once he does, they're sure to follow every other state he's visited.

Da Tourest give me a break. When have the Clintons ever stole an election. It seems like the Republicans are the masters of that. The only think you hate about Bill Clinton is he does not roll over and play dead when you use your lying Republican swift boating tactics on him. You Republicans are so good at inventing facts. Keep watching Fox because everyone will know your delusional and dismiss you as a fringe rightwinger.

P.S. about the Chris Matthews interview with Sen. Kirk Watson, a Texas state lawmaker. It's obvious that Watson's audio link was severely delayed, resulting in an obvious lag time in hearing what Matthews was asking. No, Watson couldn't name any of Obama's legislation, but Watson is a STATE senator, not a U.S. senator.

Chris Matthews didn't have to be such a jerk, either. After all, Matthews couldn't name ANY of the legislation passed by the entire U.S. Senate. Wow, what a newsman. Here's the link again:

Considering that most Obamites have as little experience with history, politics or social change as their candidate, it is amazing how self-righteous you all are. Just jump on the bandwagon. Don't learn about anything, repeat his mantra lines. Much more effective. You are people, not lemmings, learn to not "follow the leader" all the time. He offers no policies or evidence of how he will change things in his message, just slogans. Yet you all gladly drink the Kool-Ade. When (if) I am forced to vote for him to prevent a republican presidency, I will vomit in my mouth and I am done with the party. Too many ignorant people chose our nominee. How can republicans and independents, who haven't committed to my organization (been a Democrat since age 13, Mondale-Ferraro Obamite novices might have to look it up-see 1984)get to chose our nominee- as an agonostic I don't go into churches picking the pastor. I pray Obama can beat McCain (if you have any experience, you know that polls 9 months out mean nothing)- but given the reality of the situation, it is a stretch why?
- lack of experience on the world stage

- doesn't generally poll well with working class (Wisconsin is one state- look at the whole picture)- the people who didn't vote for Kerry either

-doesn't generally poll well with Asian or Latin voters- McCain is cosponsor of the McCain/Kennedy act, popular with Latin voters

-McCain does well with independents/Dems as Barak does well with independents

-once the media is off of HRC- who they clearly hate, they will turn and look more closely at his record- which is not what he has represented- he has had a great deal of corporate support (as she has), his wife has said some very politically stupid things (but all the attn is on Bill)

-on many policies, he does not have well defined positions, which makes it hard to debate and is probably the reason he has not done particularly well in previous debates and is avoiding future ones

No strategy is going to help the War Party candidates: Hillary and McCain.

The media is hell bent on discussing all sorts of trivia instead of talking about the fact that Hillary is losing because of her stance on foreign policy. The Kyle/Lieberman bill was the last nail on her coffin.

In many posts, people mention that Hillary seems fake, or that she needs to show us her "real" self. I'm beginning to think there simply isn't anything behind the curtain. If there was "genuine" Hillary we would have seen her by now. I don't think she knows how to be anything except what polls or advisors tell her to try to portray. Either that, or whatever her real self is, she and her campaign are trying very hard to make sure we never see it. Makes you wonder what is underneath the facade.

Hillary needs to come out strongly against the various Free Trade policies and loss of jobs due to outsourcing. If she makes a clear statement against these and spell out a specific road map to stop the loss of jobs , that should help her. Otherwise skepticism continues.

"People don't want to speak out against Obama because of the fear of being seen as racist," he says. "It's easier to say you want to keep a woman barefoot and pregnant....You can call a woman anything."

Is sexism ramped?"
---------------------------

Quite true.

What is even more interesting is that you can't get away with the same kind of sexism with black women.

For cultural reasons, serious, tough black women are not considered mannish the way white women are.

i bet Michelle will get away with a lot more non-traditional behavior than Hillary ever did.

fact is: life isn't fair.

50 years ago, a white woman's word was enough to lynch a black man.

Balance of power is always in flux.

There are no good people or bad people, there is only change.

Hillary however has done our society a great service by highlighting just how sexist we are.

Some of us plant the seed, some prepare the ground, some harvest the fruits, some enjoy them.

Democrats should stop playing defense. Instead of assuming national defense is what voters care about they should assume that what we care about is the ability to pay bills, send kids to college, get disaster relief and end war. You morons who are planning how to recoup Clinton dont get it. We need a Democrat not a response to a republican.

It is virtually impossible for her to win based on the same tired merits and experience she has beening touting so far; 35 years of experience, my ####. I have been married to a doctor for 20 years. I guess that makes me able to do surgery, right? So, let's operate!

Let see, Daddy Bush was experienced, Her husband was experienced, Baby Bush was experienced, Carter was experienced, Nixon was experienced and Johnson was experienced,and Reagan was experienced (but senile) and each of their administrations suffered greatly and ended crappy!!!! Same old, same old same old crap each election year. We are ready for an infusion of new ideas, new approaches, and unfortunately, that experience she wears so proudly only makes her part of the same old, same old same. We have to get off that tired old merry-go-round and do something bold and different if expect a different result.

Re No. 5: Hillary didn't hold a national security clearance in the White House, and for her to suggest that Bill ignored that and discussed sensitive matters with her raises the judgment issue anew and begs the question of his role in her White House.

Obama came in second to Ron Paul in donations from troops, so I don't think he'll have a big problem with the actual military. Its self-appointed guardians, though, will surely try to hammer him on that, but he can hit back with the self-evident fact that their war of choice has all but wrecked the military, and that no amount of spending on new weapons helps those who are dealing every day with the consequences of George and Dick's Excellent Adventure.

As much as I wanted Hillary to get the nomination I have to admit that her campaign screwed up royally. The thing that any criticism of Obama would be construed in racial terms put Hillary on a box, allowing Obama to project himself as the candidate that walks on water. But I have to give it to the Obama people: the way they were able to spin the comment Hillary made about President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act and cast it in the light of disrespecting MLK was simply brilliant and cynical. The question is will all this fly during the fall election: will there be enough blacks and guilt-ridden white liberals to get Obama over the top...We shall see.

sflosbach directs Fix readers to one of the many "quicky attack" versions of the Chris Matthews interview with a Texas state senator who shows embarrassing ignorance of Obama's legislative accomplishments

Here's the fuller video that also shows Matthews' own embarrassing ignorance after the interview ends:

Even tonight more of the Obama paid staff ($50 per day) pouring into Texas. They understand the caucus system and conducting trainings. Today Congressman Lloyd Doggett who has been in Austin politics since the early seventies endorsed Obama. I appreciate Hillary's years of service but the age of privillage is over. It is time for our generation who cut our chops on George McGovern to gracefully step asside.

You can buy this Hillary/Hogwash if you wanna, but here's THE REAL PLAN!

Harold Ickes and Hillary's other five hip-pocket allies on the DNC will change the rules to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates in Denver, and Obama can lay his head in Michelle's lap and cry his little eyes out!

Has anyone bothered actually to compare these two candidates? Obama is so far superior to Clinton in almost every way that the idea that he could lose to her is about as preposterous as the idea that the idiot George Bush could win a second term. Only in America...

As an Obama supporter, I thank you Chris for this story on the Clinton team's thinking. As previously noted, posting it is not the same as advocating it. Letting all of us see it unvarnished like this is the best way to let us make up our own minds on if it is sagacity or, as I believe, wishful and misguided hooey.

Does it strike anybody else strange that she is going after this guy with the same intensity as if he were a Republican? I think this demonstrates a lack of responsibility for her party which, whoever it is, will have a standard-bearer in the fall.

Chris, you do great stuff and a blog is certainly different from ordinary journalism. But this shouldn't be posted unless you have the Obama reaction or offer some insight from yourself or others. Part of the unnamed strategy in the Clinton campaign is to get this kind of uncontested "freebie" coverage.

1-4 have merit because they're what-ifs, but of course they haven't happened. 5 is unlikely to work because the majority of americans are -- like me -- probably most fearful of an "experienced national security" grumpy old man who thinks hanging around Iraq for 100 yrs. is a great idea & who now says torturing our enemies is okay, too. 6 is ridiculous: as a Democrat, my mom could win most of the big states Hillary won (NY & CA), & my mom is dead.

wow, i need a job as campaign manager.
if Penn can get paid, then anybody can.
Has this guy done nothing right?
has a single message he pushed actually worked?

the problem is we still dont know Hillary. whatever you sell has to be authentic to that person.

this new line of attack will not help. anybody who already believe it is already going to support Hillary. Most independents are gong to think that neither of them can win that argument against McCain, and dismiss it as a zero sum argument.

I think the essential problem with this "Clinton Advisor" strategy is that it is completely based on attacking Obama; none of it is based on Sen. Clinton's strengths as a potential President. This is a desperate strategy that sends a message of "we will do whatever we think we have to do to damage Obama if it serves to help Hillary." I think voters will see this as a transparently negative strategy.

I suggest that, instead, Sen. Clinton free herself from this type of strategy and simply say that both she and Sen. Obama share mostly similar political philosophies and that the American people will be well served if either of them is ultimately elected President of the U.S.

She can talk about her platform in a positive manner, how she feels confident in serving for four years as President; and say that she is comfortable for the American people to decide between her and Obama. She could then say that if Sen. Obama is chosen instead of her she will enthusiastically support him.

However to constanly engage in this petty attack against Obama makes her look like exactly the type of conventional politician that the American people have said they do not want.

Ironically, Sen. Clinton has a chance to show that this can be her finest moment - she could say in the debate on Thursday evening that she is firing Ickes, Wolfson, and other advisors for suggesting this type of negative campaign. And, while she is at it, she could also say that while she appreciates her husbands support for her she has also asked her husband not to campaign for her in the next few weeks because he detracts from her message.

1. He voted against the War.Say over and over again-defiantly.Point you finger. Make a chant that rhymes-"

-Actually, this is incorrect. He was not a senator at the time. He was opposed to the war, but I would not give him as many 'points' as I would a senator who decided to vote against it thereby endangering their political lives.

All your other reasons are valid.

As to the plan above, it's like playing a game of chess and 'hoping' that your opponent will move in a certain way to allow you your super-secret last chance move. As Hillary famously said, "hope is not a strategy"... and yet it seems to be the last things she has, since NOTHING she has done has helped her get votes and everything Obama has done has helped him.

Talk about tone deaf -- these clowns are guilty of exactly what Hillary practices every day....not listening. It's as if they really think that the echos in their clubhouse are the voices of the people.

FACT ONE - the entire counry (except 2 or 3 neo-cons, maybe) are totally disgusted with the current administration - and as a consequence, they are up off their "couches" and marching to the polls.

The dissatisfaction with the status quo - needs no further proof...Democrats, Republicans and Indepentends are sick of the situation in Washington which they equate as the Bush WHITE HOUSE. That is until someone else appears to remind them that is was not just Bush in the White House.

Hillary started out her campaign loudly self-congratulating herself for her 35 YEARS of experience. Duh...

Wrong.

FACT TWO - When Hillary proclaims 35 years of experience she is pointing directly at the White House (most folks do not know her Senate resume). The White House!

To the nation, pointing at the White House means that everyone is reminded of Bill.

Hillary's experience = BILL.

Rightly or wrongly (most folks, especially the Independents and Republicans) do not equate the Clinton White House with ethical behavior or personal honor. They equate it to the Bush status quo.

White House experience = Bush = Clinton.

What Hillary and her policy wonk ilk do not hear is that White House experience means angry, stubborn, gridlocked status quo to the folks who have roused themselves from their "couches" and are milling about looking for something to believe in.

They are outraged at Bush and they are taking it out on the person who claims experience and points to the White House.

Then, along comes Obama.

FACT THREE - He offers something different. He offers something that feels better than long and angry memories of gridlocked special prosecutors and Dick Cheney.

Obama simply offers hope for a better America.

And, in so doing, he takes all that pent up anger and frustration from millions and millions of Americans (already up and ready to do something)and just focuses it through a lens of hope on a better future.

In a millisecond, the anger flips to a much more satisfying and fulfilling emotion: HOPE.

And, Obama is the lens.

FACT FOUR - It has nothing to do with policy.

It has to do with listening to America and understanding that all of us simply want CHANGE. We want hope and change.

Is it just me or do the Clinton advisors seem to be getting sleazier and sleazier. They remind me (esp Penn) of a bunch of used car dealers angry that their wheels aren't moving off of the lot. Instead of selling better cars, they add polish or change the radio in the car they cannot sell. The engine is still the same though. This is very quickly looking like the the dirty politics that we democrats spent years pinning on the Bush administration.

Point 4 remains one of the lamest "points" they've managed to come up with. Hillary Clinton, in her massive 8 years of actual experience as an elected official has also never run against a serious opponent. Guiliani (hardly that serious an opponent anyway, as recent events show) was in the Senate race for but a minute before he dropped out because of his cancer. And HE WAS WINNING at the time. Rick Lazio was a complete joke, if you recall. And the repubs couldn't even get a candidate on the ballot until months before the last election. This "battle-tested" thing is as big a canard as her "35 years" of experience working for a large, private law firm and being first lady. If Hillary's career isn't over after this election, it's pretty clear Mark Penn's is. Thank God.

There is just no way to turn the tide. And now Clinton has a 527 to do her dirty work raising millions from shadowy donors that could be lobbyists for who knows who. She is the same old politics. And Obama has plenty of accomplishments including the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act which forces Senators like Clinton to disclose all those earmarks that she loves to make. Why have a Democratic nominee that is not wanting transparency such as releasing her tax returns? Why have a Democrat that operates like a Republican when it comes to issues like that?

Chris you left out #7--Hillary and Bill hold another pray in with Jesse Jackson and the lord answers them... except Jesse endorsed Obama already...never mind. If this is their strategy you might as well stick a fork in Hillary's candidacy. EP in MA

"If Obama is the village idiot, how does he continually beat the smartest woman in the world?"

That's funny, George Bush supporters repeatedly bring up a similar argument about their guy Dubya.

Anyway, as a Clinton supporter, I have to disagree with the idea that the bigger states she won matter more. As pointed out, those states go D anyway. Are they thinking that if she's not the nominee, those big states will go R? Unlikely. If she loses one of the next primaries, I think she should give it up before the convention. The people are speaking, though I'm not on the bandwagon.

It would be good for HRC to win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania and leave this race in the hands of the Superdelegates. August is a long time off, what if Obama explodes or collapses before then. He's never been in a major race and their are alot of moderate issues that Hillary has not been able to hit him on because she does not want to allianate the far left. If Obama does not self destruct and has more votes than Superdelegates will vote for him but if he does, it is not a bad fall back position to have HRC!

"People don't want to speak out against Obama because of the fear of being seen as racist," he says. "It's easier to say you want to keep a woman barefoot and pregnant....You can call a woman anything."

Isn't the definition of "stupid" doing the same thing expecting different results? All the negative tactics only reinforce why we don't want Hillary, and make voters run in droves towards Obama.

HRC and Penn seem incapable of seeing this. I'm seriously beginning to question Hillary's mental fitness. She appears to be in so much denial that she is unable to see what is so clear to so many. This is not a quality we want in our leader.

How does Mark Penn still have a job? The guy doesn't have a clue. And why is Hillary still listening to him?

This reminds me of Coach K at Duke making all the right moves tactically, even when everyone knows he doesn't have the star player who can make the junp shot at the end of the game. Their candidate is lacking integrity. Nothing else matters at this point. A loss is inevitable.

POOR HILLARY...SHE IS CREATING A LEGACY OF THE BIGGEST WACKED OUT LOOSER IN HISTORY. PEOPLE HAD FORGOTTEN AND FORGIVEN OR FELT SORRY FOR HER PAST FAUX PAS AND BEING THE CUCKOLDED WIFE. NOW SHE INSPIRES CONTEMPT AND DISGUST. AS OPPOSED TO HOPE, THE POSSIBLITY OF BETTERING OUR PEOPLE AND OUR NATION WHAT WOULD ANY SANE PERSON CHOOSE? IT IS A SHAME AS I THINK IT WILL CRIPPLE HER ABBILITY TO DO GOOD WORKS IN THE FUTURE. SHE IS MAKING HERSELF POLITICAL POISON. THE ONLY WAY SHE CAN REDEEM HERSELF AT THIS POINT IS TO GRACIOUSLY WITHDRAW AND PUSH FOR THE ELECTION OF SENATOR OBAMA.
SHE IS SHOWING THE SAME REFUSAL TO SEE THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE THAT GEORGE BUSH HAS SHOWN FOR THE PAST 7 YEARS. HE JUST RUDGES ON HIS OWN WAY JUST AS SHE DOES. ALL WE NEED IS ANOTHER HARD HEADED INFLEXABLE MY WAY OR THE HIWAY PRESIDENT. FORTUNATELY I DON'T THINK WE WILL HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT. I HOPE SHE HAS ENOUGH CASH LEFT TO PAY FOR THE LECTERN AT THE CONVENTION...AS ONE POSTER POINTED OUT THEY WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO DRAG HER AWAY FROM IT WITH HER FINGER NAILS IMBEDDED IN IT.
SAY GOOD NIGHT HILLARY...PLEASE!

There is a two week stretch, lots of time to turn the tide. The last couple of days have shown that Obama is no longer treated like a raw egg. McCain is taking swings at him, so does Clinton and even the press starts to hit him. Finally!

I just love that interview with one Obama supporter and fellow senator who was asked to name ONE single achievement of Obama in the Senate :-). Look and laugh for yourself:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o

In times of trouble (and these are troubled times) I want someone strong and intelligent as a leader, not a sweet-talker and dreamer who just pronounces the words of governor Patrick in a more forceful way.

I want someone who wants to end the war in Iraq, but not by running away from the mess created by Bush. I want someone who cleans up that mess and if that is a woman, fine with me! Pulling out the troops Obama fashion will cost us dearly because we will be haunted by such a retreat. We have to finish the job and if Obama is the democratic candidate, the American people will elect someone who will finish the job instead of someone who wants to run away from that job.

What Hillary has to do is to energize her bases and get the Hispanic vote out in massive numbers. There is an enormous potential. Obama lived on independent votes and high turnout numbers from black voters, so she has to rally up her troops and that should win her Texas and Ohio, but don't forget about Vermont and Rhode Island.

Neither candidate will win before the convention. It would have been different, if the states were winner-takes-all.

She has to deliver a stellar performance on the upcoming debate and with the status as an underdog and a woman, she should appeal to voters. Her strength is to listen, to chat and to answer questions, Obama is the teleprompter guy with the boyish grin.
She has already faced hard times in her life, Obama is still a freshman. Hard times form a character, fighting creates a character, giving speeches does not.

When it comes to the big issues like health care or foreclosures or the economy, she has solutions, he has the speeches. But she does have underestimated the power of words and dreams. Let's hope that Texans and people from Ohio are wideawake and see that the emperor has new clothes...

Thirteen days is a long time for breaking negative news about Obama, and in combination and as a sign of good work across party lines, John and Hillary should be able to put down Obama ;-)

Point #2 -- "Two weeks is a long time..." -- is a howler. The thing about it is, every time Obama has time, he does better; it's when he doesn't have time to introduce himself to local voters that he lags. Hence, a win in Iowa after months of campaigning, followed by a loss in New Hampshire a few days later; a win in South Carolina after a week of campaigning, followed by a loss or draw on Super Tuesday, when the sheer number of states voting made it impossible to meet the voters; and then a whole series of wins in states/regions with primaries nicely spread a week or so apart. Clinton is a known quantity, and has limited growth potential; a slower calendar definitely favors Obama.

Desperate! Desperate! Desperate! I am looking for something loathsome and dishonest from the Clintons. I expect it to come in the next day. A win by her at this point is virtually impossible on the same tired merits and experience she has beening touting so far; 35 years of experience, my ####. I have been married to a doctor for 20 years. I guess that makes me able to so surgery, right? So, let's operate!
Let see, Daddy Bush was experienced, Her husband was experienced, Baby Bush was experienced, Carter was experienced, Nixon was experienced and Johnson was experienced,and Reagan was experienced (but senile) and each of their administrations suffered greatly and ended crappy!!!! Same old, same old same old crap each election year. We are ready for an infusion of new ideas, new approaches, and unfortunately, that experience she wears so proudly only makes her part of the same old, same old same. We have to get off that tired old merry-go-round and do something bold and different if expect a different result.

I expect her to go very negative and even pettier. And, when she does, she will have peeled back the mask of "moral authority" and revealed a truly evil being ready to do anything low and desperate thing on her road to the White House. The nastier she gets the better she nmakes Obama looks by comparison. Who wants a mean grump old witch for a president. I'll take inexperience over that anyday. We've already had 8 years of one mean ole SOB, don't need nor want another. If she wins, I am sitting out this general election and I normally vote every election. I don't want her or McCain. GO OBAMA. I HOPE (oops, oops, I'm plaragizing) Obama wins decisively.

will someone please explaing to me why we identify bill clinton as william jefferson clinton, and we have never heard obama called by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama. is he not proud of his name? or is he trying to hide it from all to know?

why is everyone focused on the negative aspects of the campaign the clinton's are running; why is no one talking about all the dirty tricks mr hussein's campaign is undertaking?

Can someone explain why "Clinton's Blueprint.." is the lead article on the Post's site? This is news? Sounds like something out of a 1960's Russian news service extolling the (missing) virtues of a "leader of the people..."

Anything to make Hillary sound powerful and constructively proactive...

Up until last night, I thought that there was a path for Clinton to the nomination. The Wisconsin results blow that up. Her coalition of voters broke, his held and strengthened. In essence, the results up to and including Super Tuesday indicated an unstable equilibrium. Think of a ball on the top of a hill. It's balanced on top, but sooner or later will start rolling one way or the other. Texas and Ohio will ratify the nomination of Obama (even if close) and Clinton will exit and endorse Obama. Remember, Teddy Kennedy had a contentious race against Carter and is now a senior Dem spokesman. Clinton may not become president, but will be a player for decades to come.

Finally... Anyone dissing Chris for summarizing the conference call has missed the point. The point of this post is to summarize the Clinton campaign strategy. If you aren't interested in that, why don't you NOT READ IT. [Think Church Lady tones.] Until you have a readership of your own--and I haven't seen Novak or Broder or even Kos posting here--don't expect to be taken seriously.

I'm tired of the Clinton attitude that most of the country doesn't count - just the big states. She has had this attitude since Iowa and it was very apparent after Super Tuesday. Comments such as "well we won California and New York while he one Utah, Idaho, insert other states here" are part of team Hillary's arrogance problem. As a person who has spent most of my life in "flyover" country, I am sick of it. If my vote doesn't matter to her now, she won't get it later.

No, it won't work: these three masterminds and the candidate they serve are whistling in the dark.

There is only one way in which their scenario can succeed: if, by an act of God, Obama makes some idiotic mistake in the debates, such as appearing flustered, unprovokedly angry, or confused. Presumably he is too cool a professional to fall into such a trap, unless he's been up much too late at night.

This is a strategy hatched by a trio of numskulls who can't understand that all their their arguments, all their strategems and schemes, and all their spins have failed up to now. They are marching over a cliff. The more they get Hillary to chant her fee-fi-fo-fums ("thirty-five years," "day one," "solutions not promises"), the more they will bore and repel all those in her audience who have not yet bought and swallowed her snake oil.

What Hillary COULD do would be to put on an entirely new act: to say that she's "got the message"--that she realizes that people aren't listening--that so far she has failed and that she admits to having made some big mistakes--that she respects and honors Obama and shares the hopes of which he speaks--but that she also REALLY AND TRULY knows how to get these things done, and looks forward to working WITH Obama (say, with him as her vice-president) to accomplish these grand aims. And to accompany such an about-face, she has to announce that most of the geniuses who've been running her failed campaign have been fired.

That, of course, would be a grand roll of the dice. And nothing that this anally-compulsive nit-picking, power- and control-obsessed woman has done in the past thirty-five years gives any ground for suspecting that she has the guts to roll such dice.

So she will go on as she has, wound up like a mechanical doll, with that idiotic grin on her face, till hell freezes over. The fact that she is promising more of the same, only louder and louder, seems ample evidence that she has learned nothing whatsoever.

Political campaigns are useful because they do show how well a potential president can respond to the unexpected, can think outside boxes, can handle incompetent advisers, and--in short--can think. "As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew," as Lincoln informed Congress during the darkest days of the Civil War. That was his genius: the ability to realize when new crises demanded new and creative answers, which might now be revealed in the latest six-point staff paper.

I'm not convinced that Obama is a Lincoln, but Mrs. Clinton certainly isn't. At this point, barring divine intervention, I don't see her reversing the tide that's now threatening to overwhelm her.

A fair reader can see that Chris does not agree with the talking points, and appears to doubt the plausibility of some of them. The problem is that reporting on what Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson say either requires gross suspension of disbelief, or a level of critique that culturally, journalists aren't comfortable with. I don't think WaPo is proClinton. It's more that the Clinton campaign is like the 1989 Pistons. They foul on every possession, they work the refs hard (you're _so_ unfair, MSNBC, WaPo, bloggers, etc), and it's seriously putting journalists in a bad place -- the journalists can't call fouls every three lines of the reality-denying drivel that pair exudes. Well, Keith Olbermann can, but he's just a towel-snapping jock, right?

Put another way, as a journalist, it's hard to write once, much less incessantly, the truth that her campaign, as Josh Marshall memorably put it, lives "in a cocoon of political ridiculousness." So don't shoot Chris, who is trying to be balanced in the way editors and readers demand 'balance.'

It's not his fault that 'balanced' views of Penn and Wolfson at this point necessitate nausea, laughter, or turning down the TV. Mediaheads have to split it down the middle, or Hillaryfolks and editors will howl.

Thankfully, without a gaffe, the exercise of dignifying their drivel ends soon.

I can't name my own Senators' accomplishments off the cuff, but, I've found that, especially with McCainiacs, the most effective answer to the "name one, just one!" of Obama's legislative accomplishments is "the McCain-Obama Climate Change Act, co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman, mandating a two-thirds reduction in heat-trapping emissions, including greenhouse gases like CO2, by 2050."

They usually lose the stomach for the fight after that, but you'd be surprised how many of them can't name a "conservative" legislative accomplishment of McCain's, only things they hate, like McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold. Try it; it's amazing.

Hillary needs to stop talking about process (e.g., how she can campaign more effectively against the Drudge-Limbaugh-Fox-Noise axis), and needs to make an emotional/gut-level case for her candidacy.

However, Mark Penn is correct about the experience factor in the general election. Democratic voters need to think carefully before nominating amateurs. Michelle Obama is a lovely and smart woman, but she is making the kinds of mistakes Hillary made when she debuted nationally in 1992.

Mark Halperin's comments today should serve as a caution to Democrats:

"So far, Obama campaign officials have smoothly explained away Michelle Obama's statement Monday when she told a Wisconsin audience, 'For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.' The campaign has clarified her comment thusly: Of course she is proud of America and loves her country, but she recognizes its political system has not always been perfect. Like her husband, Michelle Obama has garnered extraordinarily positive press coverage, and, despite some cautiously critical commentary during the last 12 hours, the dominant Old Media has not yet pounced on her remark.

"But if you sample talk radio and the conservative blogs, you will get a neat preview of what will happen if Barack Obama is the Democrats' presidential nominee and his wife makes similar statements as a potential first lady. The opposition will launch a full-scale assault against her judgment and (at least indirectly) her character and patriotism, and all previous remarks, including this one, will be recycled, replayed, and condemned. If she makes such a comment in October 2008, it could be disastrous for her husband's campaign.

"The clearest evidence: Cindy McCain, who almost never involves herself in the politics of the day and shies from controversy, struck back with this response: 'I am proud of my country. I don't know about you. If you heard those words earlier, I am very proud of my country.'

"The Clinton campaign has often argued that Barack Obama is not prepared to face a general election onslaught from the rough Republican attack machine, but that contention has not yet been extended to Michelle Obama. This may change, given the pressures surrounding the current cluster of primaries. And those who think that the remarks of candidate spouses don't count should hearken back to 2004. Teresa Heinz Kerry's words were mocked, parsed, and censured by the Bush campaign and the Republican opposition, to great effect. In one incident, Mrs. Kerry was forced to apologize for suggesting Laura Bush had never held 'a real job,' and her occasionally brash statements and behavior contributed to the negative image of Senator Kerry as patrician and remote."

HRC and her team are making a big mistake by dissing those of us who don't live in what they choose to call "big" states (evidently, states that she has won). I live in tiny little Virginia, and it's news to me that winning Virginia, or Wisconsin, or any other state, somehow doesn't matter. Desparate and counterproductive spin from a desperate campaign.

Why is the Press still playing this like the race is still Hilary's to lose? Obama has won 10 primaries in a row?, decisively!! He's raised more money from more donors, has more endorsements, more votes, more states, more energy...Hilary has no claim on this job. Why is it all about what Hilary has to do to win. If the roles were reversed, no one would be talking about Obama? She better start to understand that the enemy here isn't Obama, it's the Republicans and if she damages the Democratic nominee and gives the Republicans ammunition, she's not doing herself ant favors.

Particularly telling is No. 4 in the Clinton-Ickes-Wolfson game plan. It prescribes more attacks on Obama, with each molehill made more mountainous by the Clinton campaign through media surrogates. It's more of the same negative campaigning, last-minute dirty tricks and hysterical inferences the Clinton campaign has relied on to shore up Billary's crumbling bid for the White House.

It's no surprise that Wolfson and Ickes spend most of their time trying to get the press to "scrutinize" Obama. The surprise is that so many reporters and editors serve up the Clintons' slime du jour in its raw form, and always as the main course. Gone are the days, apparently, when reporters exhibited a semblance of objectivity and editors exhibited judgment in refraining from placing unsubstantiated charges at the top of page A1.

While most of us want change in government, how about a little change in the press while we're at it? Negative campaigning only succeeds when the press stands idly by in complicit laziness.

While Obama may deserve more scrutiny as the frontrunner, that's no excuse to let Clinton's storied past off the hook. I've never seen a Page One reference to Whitewater, Monica Lewisnky, Hillary's health care fiasco, Travelgate, "vast right-wing conspiracy," etc. in the mainstream press during this election cycle.

Ok. Sure. Those are 6 things to think about. Except NONE of them combat Barack's blueprint to the nomination:

1) Winning more delegates, voters, and states.

2) Two weeks only helps Obama and his momentum to make inroads in big states. (See 6 below)

3) Speaking to the hearts and minds of voters at their homes is what matters; not exchanging desperate rhetoric or nitty gritty policy details that happens in circus debates.

4) Scrutiny intended to damage a candidate only hurts that candidates campaign. Every attack by Clinton has backfired as Obama doesn't hit back. He shrugs it off and he wins.

5) The wrong wars hurt national security and Iraq is the wrong war. McCain has the uphill battle on national security. Barack leads him in polls.

6) Big states are bigger investments, not ones that matter. Voters in big states take longer to know a new candidate, require much more resources and groundwork. Now that Barack has momentum, resources, and a strong ground game, he is more likely to cut into her lead than she is to grow her lead.

This 'plan' fails because it doesn't bring anything new to the table; it recycles old losses. For Hillary to win, she has to change her tone and style and raise new and compelling issues. The problem is that the Clinton style of protectionist inner circles and elbow rubs keeps out the necessary new, innovative and sometimes risky ideas to save their campaign. That's why Obama started winning and that's why she will continue to lose.

Dude, I hope those comments about McCain being a psycho from Vietnam were in jest...I support Obama and I happen to think that an honest portrayal of the differences between the candidates will lead to victory for Obama...there's no call for vilifying a genuine American hero.

On March 5 this will race will be over, unless Clinton signficantly closes the delegate gap. And there is no reason to think that she will, based on results to date. Texas is already looking like a state where Obama can easily gain net delegates. And why should Ohio voters be 30% different from Wisconsin? With further momentum/labor endorsements now strengthening Obama's hand even more?

The last thing the super delegates want is for Democrats to keep attacking and weakening each other until Puerto Rico in June, and then engage in bloody internal battles over super ds, FLA, Mich, etc, in July and August. On March 5 they will start moving in large numbers to Obama, putting the nomination definitively out of Hillary's reach. And then we can all focus on getting back the White House, together.

HRC's biggest problem is that she bought her own "inevitability" propaganda. She effectively ceded all the caucus states to Obama because her campaign never imagined that Obama could possibly be a factor after Super Tuesday. She didn't even bother to put in a full delegate slate for Pennsylvania, for God's sake! That doesn't affect her ability to win delegates there -- she can nominate them later -- but it does tell you something about the campaign's mindset.

Her biggest problem is that Obama's campaign has now become a metaphor for his message. "See what WE can do TOGETHER? Don't tell us we hope in vain. Great things ARE possible! Hillary had all the power of the establishment behind her but we the people are going to take back our party and then we're going to take back Washington!" Her "plan," which boils down to winning in Texas, Ohio and, hopefully, Pennsylvania, does nothing to address that narrative.

One thing, BTW, that she really needs to do is retool her rhetoric. It's striking when you watch her and Obama speak one after the other. Hillary speaks in terms of "I/you" and even "they." Obama is almost always "we." It sounds like a small thing but the differnce in affect is striking.

The issue is how such an experienced, battled tested, vetted and toughened politician could run such a disorganized, politically inept campaign. It's increasingly surprising that she ever won an election in New York. Of course, she never actually faced Giuliani, who withdrew from the 2000 Senate Race early on and who has proven in 2008 that he's not a very formidable politician. Indeed, Giuliani and HRC excel in blowing leads. Rick Lazio self-destructed.

The 2008 nominating contest is the first serious battle for either Clinton or Obama and she's looking very, very lame.

If Mark Penn, et al., would work to include the Florida voters in the process, that would be a good beginning to help all American voters feel more confident in this process.

Since the GOP- controlled state legislature is the entity that had the authority to designate the date for Florida voters to vote, and more than a million did, but some thought their votes wouldn't count because of the DNC.

This problem should be resolved immediately.

It could be easily resolved if Florida followed suit with New Mexico who extended their voting period, and used provisional ballots which they counted by hand for days on end, and Maryland who extended their voting time for awhile because of dangerous driving conditions,

why couldn't Florida extend their voting time for a two week period of time, and let those who did not vote, request an absentee ballot, vote, and have their votes included with the other million or so voters?

Florida voters are angry about not having delegates counted, because of the GOP machine, and so am I and so are many other Americans. Every vote should count, and nobody should have the power to stop that from happening.

I don't know what happened in Michigan, but that should also be sorted out - and it should be done BEFORE the Ohio Vote, and the Texas vote.

People have a right to know what is going on. The Clinton camp should take an open, very firm stand on this. gw.

The funniest part of all this is how Obama supporters try to vilify a reporter for SIMPLY RECOUNTING THE CLINTON STRATEGY. You all need to relax. This was not an attack. He wasn't going after your candidate or laying out his own thoughts. He was just reporting the facts of a meeting between Clinton campaign strategists. Just because he's not in lockstep with you all, you think he's somehow helping the Clinton campaign

If Clinton doesn't win Ohio & Texas, the nomination is Obama's. It's as simple as that.

In the meantime, try taking a few deep breaths and maybe step away from the computer for an hour or so. Play with the kids. See a movie. Go for a walk. Read a book (a good novel though, re-reading "Dreams of My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" for the seventeenth and eighteenth times respectively doesn't count). Maybe, by laying off the of reading every article , editorial, and opinion piece on the campaign in a never-ending quest for the faintest of perceived slights, you'll resist the urge to burn up the keyboard every time you imagine someone isn't giving full, glassy-eyed, "Obama-is-my-oxygen" type support to your messiah.

No campaign ends because the candidate wants to stop. They end because they go broke. Obama is already outspending Hillary in Ohio and Texas and he will up the pressure over the next 13 days. I bet he outspends her four or three to one in Ohio and Texas. Hillary will be broke on March 4th. Indeed, given the mismanagement of her campaign to date, she could even go the way of Kathleen Brown. In 1994, running for governor of California, Brown spent all of her money by the Saturday before election day and her opponent's ads were allowed to air without competition for the last three days of the compaign. Brown lost by 17 or 18 points.

And her results in Texas and Ohio will unlikely be good enough (even if she gets a win in one of those states) to keep the funds flowing.

Like Jake Barnes in The Sun Also Rises, Hillary will go bankrupt, slowly, then suddenedly

I feel as if i'm not being heard...and i don't think i'm alone. I am SO sick of Hillary and Obama competing against each other and throwing mud at each other during this campaign...and i'm so tired of the media making that conduct the focus of all articles.

Will someone PLEASE start asking BOTH candidates about issues...how they propose to deal with all the inappropriate privileges assumed by the current executive branch...what they propose to do with the most controversial of the signing statements in which Bush has exempted himself from having to follow a duly passed law he didn't have the guts to put through the veto process...what initiatives do they forsee to handle the budget deficit in light of all the contradictory bright ideas (rebates to stimulate an economy bankrupted by an unbudgeted war and misguided foreign aid)...what is their posture on transparency in government (will they lose all their emails and fail to maintain required records for the archives)?

Let us hear how they propose to govern, not what they think of each other...and let US do the comparisons. It would give the media a LOT more to work with than poll numbers!

Obama will win, the Democrats aren't stupid. The Clintons have had their time.

We need to focus on McCain. I say that the best way to paint McCain is to Swift Boat him.

Who would be normal and have normal reactions after having been tortured for five and half years? His fly off the handle temper is a signal that when he can't control his enviroment he loses control of himself. All related to his experiences and inability to control his captors during his visit to the Hanoi Hilton. He's a deformed and tragic figure that shouldn't have his hands on the button. Already he's said that he's willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years. How nutty is that? He wants to fight Viet-Nam all over again.

Obama has won far more states and several big ones as well. If she can claim New York, he can certainly claim Illinois, the fifth largest state. He's also won Georgia, Virginia, and Washington which are all bigger than Massachusetts.

stew, M.D. is an erudite gossip columnist - she did her "best work" during the Lewinsky ordeal. Sometimes she amuses, sometimes she abuses. Sometimes her comments on social mores are worth a discussion.

The "debates matter" point might end up being the final nail in her coffin. Just like Gore in 2000, playing up debates so much makes the feeling that she is so superior in formatting that the bar is set so high there's virtually no way she can exceed expectations, rendering it a loss as long as Obama doesn't show up drunk and falling over himself.

An interesting post and series of responses -- but keep this in mind: it is not "all about Hillary." It is about the party. As Obama stated last week: He will pick up the states Hillary is carrying, but she is not likely to pick up all of his supporters if she is nominated. The purple states is where this election will be won or lost in November.

Even Carville admitted on CNN again today that Texas is a must-win. When HRC loses Texas, the jig is up.

If she runs the board and reverses the trend, then it will be an interesting horserace to see how automatically the superdelegates (aka insiders; officially, "automatic delegates') line up behind HRC. Most delegates will go with whom their constituents have gone, regardless of months-ago "commitments."

If they don't, the backlash will be enormous and it will be a President McCain -- probably with fewer popular votes, a la Bush II.

Isn't it strange that despite the fact that Obama has won the last 10 primaries by big margins, including the two yesterday that the New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post all are featuring articles focusing on Hillary? Lets face it if the roles were reversed the Post et al would have already written off Obama. Where is all of the talk about how Obama in his 44 minute victory speech last night made great efforts to discuss more details of his policies for the electorate? It just goes to show that the Clintons are the quintessential Washington insiders.

As a "flyover state," I resent Hillary's opinion that big states are what matters. If Illinois doesn't count as a big state, because it was assumed Obama would take it, how can they count New York? Does she suggest that New York and California won't vote for Obama just because she won the primary there? Also, it appears that the battleground states this time around are going to include Virginia and Colorado, where Obama took handily. Many of the voters for Obama in those states were newcomers, young, or independents. Every conservative person I know has given Obama serious evaluation. I can't say they have said the same thing about Hillary.

So I take it that Clinton "plans to win" Texas, Ohio, and PA? Can we hold the campaign to that statement? Of course not...she'll take a shellacking in all three and then the campaign will claim that it all comes down to South Dakota on June 2.

Howard Wolfson, Mark Penn and Harold Ickes are just looking for more consulting $$$. Their suggestions in this article are so off base, they just show neither Clinton nor these three hangers-on know their ass from first base when it comes to running a successful political campaign.

That has got to be the most depressing blueprint ever. "We can win, as long as something hideous from Obama's past is discovered in the next two weeks?" Of course, options are limited, since "convince people that they like Hillary" has been a spectacular failure.

proud, I wrote a long answer that was "eaten". I was one of 25k who emailed into the lottery for 100 tix. Lost again.

CNN chose an auxiliary gym that seats @2500 b/c CNN liked the setup, so after UT took the lion's share, there was little left for the hyenas. HS civics teachers who wanted their kiddies to go were peeved.

What a hoot. Forget the obvious flaws in the strategy (time is Obama's ally, not Hill's) and ignore the death blow dealt to the Clinton campaign today by the Teamsters (Hill can not just kiss Ohio good-bye, but also expect another double-digit drubbing IF no one can talk any sense into her and get her to withdraw by 3/4): The Clinton strategy consists of three steps - lie, smear, and whine about the rules. Wolfson, Penn, Ickes, etc. are reminding me of the lackeys who surrounded Hitler in the Bunker on the final days, feeding the paranoia and delusions of their boss.

No, I don't buy it. There is nothing that Clinton can do to win this nomination. It is obvious that they have neither the candidate nor the message to suddenly run up a string of landslide victories starting March 4. Obama is now in control of this campaign. The only way that he can lose this nomination is if he makes a fatal mistake. Considering how well his campaign has been run to date, that's highly unlikely. We're entering the endgame. If Obama maintains his focus, on March 5 it will be widely accepted conventional wisdom that she has no choice but to call it quits.

Chris Cilizza is a tool of the Clinton campaign. I don't understand this Bush-Clinton-WaPO connection. In some respects it's reassuring that their pulling for a Dem this time, instead of a Repuglican, but the thought of a partial journalistic connection to any campaign (or administration) is quite disturbing.

I'm shocked that this is basically being used to show ...everything that happened so far for Barack really doesnt matter because THIS is whats going to happen to crush him in the end.
Give me a BREAK.
He worked hard since the beginning of this campaign and the people of the past 10 states worked hard and made their decisions. I see the angry/joyful smiles clinton gives at her speeches now. It must take every nerve in her body to hold back from yelling at the American people how they screwed up.
If superdelagates take away my voice i will discontinue my involvement in politics.

What happens to this plan if Obama wins Texas? And there is the real possibility that he will. I think this is all just an attempt to "convince" voters that Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are in the bag for Clinton, so voters should just forget about them, but I don't think that will work. They might also want to take a close look at the margins in the so-called big-state primaries Clinton won. Obama was pretty close and can easily win those state in the general election...especially with Clinton campaigning for him. Voters simply can't say the same about Clinton, even with Obama campaigning for her. And this thing about Obama never facing a stiff Republican competition does not hold water. After all he is beating Clinton who has.

Hillary is no experience: co-governor, co-president, co-dependent, senator, and co-candidate. Are you kidding? The worst kind of experience old school politics. We need a new start not someone with a tangled web of a million of paybacks.

Hillary is pulling Bill wagon.

If it is Hillary, McCain wins. If it is Obama, Obama wins. Half the Americans will not vote for Hillary.

Obama draws an energized democratic base, independents and republicans. Hillary does not reach Americans. Only the old school.

Obama once elected is an American. Hillary if elected is an old school democrat.

Chris,
To echo (but reinforce) at least one comment above, if we want to hear the same spin from Ickes, Penn, and Wolfson, we can just go to Senator Clinton's website.

We all enjoy reading your work; you're a top-notch journalist. By reprinting the Clinton spin in the Post, you give it your imprimatur, even if you throw a "what do you think" at the end.

Please pass this feedback on to your editor as well. Simply reprinting Clinton nonsense is a waste of webspace (and that's what it is--sorry, they've been shown to have zero credibility over the past 3 months).

Let them post their spin on hillaryclinton.com. She's paying for a website. Why let her use yours?

If there's one state the Clinton campaign has a strong advantage over Obama, it's the state of denial. Her post-WI-poll speech said, "we're moving forward". I don't see that happening, after the drubbing she got at the hands of the voters (from all sections of the population) in WI. Time to pack up and go home, Mrs. Clinton. Thanks for the entertainment. It's time for Dems to get solidly behind Obama and get him in the Oval Office over the 137 yr old MyCane (sorry.. McCain).

"Big States Matter More" is a fundamentally flawed strategy. That is because not all big states are battlegrounds.

CA,TX, NY, and IL are not going to be contested in November. They detract from any argument based on electability.

It is fair to argue that OH, FL, MI, and PA count more than the others b/c they could be in play.

Further, the Chicago Tribune has been digging for dirt on BHO for a long time. Hoping for a scandal is not a strategy.

Claiming that her service on the SASC has given her "experience" is fair. But against McC she will be buried for her lack of accomplishment on that Committee and her vilification of a PhD General who did the best job anyone could have done in Iraq under the circumstances [Petraeus].

I do not think anybody is buying.
She cannot establish a ground game now. Her best and only chance is to act her better self, to be both gracious and energetic, and hope she wins OH.

Then she can say she won the two key swing states. Then maybe she can win PA. TX is an irrelevancy, and she probably will lose the delegate count here.

Two Weeks
Based on their track record so far, I'd say it gives them lots of time to shoot themselves in the foot from many angles.

Debates Matter
Chris, would it be possible for you to find audience numbers (TV and online) for each of the debates so far? My gut feeling is that they'll show a bell curve as people first grew interested in that side of the campaign, and then got bored. I think Wikipedia shows 22 Democratic debates so far. Whatever the exact number, I suspect the novelty factor wore off awhile back for most voters.

Frontrunner Scrutiny
I agree with you that if something were there, surely it would have surfaced by now. Bloomberg's news release yesterday on the Rezko connection with the house purchase seems to have put paid to that story going anywhere.

National Security
This works - if the idea is to push wavering independents into voting for McCain. It's an own goal, as the British would say.

Big States Matter More
Sure - to people who live in those states. ;-) Dissing Democrats in "fly-over states" isn't exactly a recipe for success, especially when that attitude is a New Yorker stereotype to being with. No matter where someone live, Obama's 50-state strategy just sounds...American.

Also, don't forget the very real argument that Obama could easily win over most Hillary voters, but not vice versa. Hillary has shown herself to be crude and I doubt many african americans or youth will support her wholeheartedly. That's deadly against a McCain, who can actually win over independents. On the other hand, Obama has already shown he's winning over indies and republicans, and can probably convince hispanics to back him sine republicans are so nuts on immigration.

2. Clinton will run the table in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania (after the core of her support eroding in the Potomac and Wisconsin primaries)

3. Obama will not run his campaign as well as he's run it up until now--ceding the stage to Hillary, screwing up in debates, running the ground and air games poorly.

If the positions of these two candidates were reversed---if Hillary was coming off a 10-0 streak, not Barack---can you imagine the screaming for him to get out of the race "for the good of the Democratic party?"

They seem to have made a mistake, since every reasonable blueprint I've seen involves getting rid of Penn as the first step.

Let's see what he has to say...

*****************************
There will be 13 days without a single vote between today and Ohio/Texas -- an opportunity, the Clinton team believes, to make their case for their candidate and against Obama without the distraction of primaries/caucuses. "This is a full chance to lay out the case," said Penn this afternoon.
*****************************

Right, now they will finally get a chance to talk about themselves without, you know, the silly *voting* to get in the way.

yeah, you should help readers debunk the garbage and explain why certain arguments are good or not. For example, the big states theory -does anyone really think the dem nominee will lose CA, NY, MA, or NJ? On the other hand, Obama won some big states that are important to win and may be contested - WI, VA, CO, IA, and was close with NM.

also, why don't they acknowledge that every poll shows Hillary losing to McCain, but Obama winning by a lot? That seems more significant than the statements they've already made about McCain. With so many primaries already conducted, it is probably safe to assume that most people at least have some idea of who Obama is (notable exceptions being OH, TX, and PA) and factored that into the poll responses in the Obama-McCain matchup. Sure, things may change, but they already understand his weaknesses, whereas we don't know all of Clinton's scandals yet (witness the recent NY Times article on Bill's influence peddling in Kazakhstan).

It frankly sounds likes the kind of wishful thinking we Bidenites engaged in before Iowa. Sure, "IF THIS happens, THEN THIS will happen, etc." can be encouraging, but I'm just not sure this is going to make it. Obama may just have the people's hearts--a tough thing to take back. Listen to "Our Karl Rove" talk about the race on the SoonerThought Show Podcast:http://soonerthought.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=309224